Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

British Council

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am pleased to be able to talk about a subject that is of great interest to many hon. Members on both sides of the House: the work and prospects of the British Council. I have the privilege to be one of the council's vice-chairmen, the other being the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). The council has always had a vice-chairman from each of the major political parties, and we recently welcomed a Liberal Democrat to the board.
For more than 60 years, successive Governments have greatly valued the work of the British Council. There have been ups and downs, but that remarkable organisation has been central to Britain's presentation around the world. If Britain is to be a successful world player, Government-to-Government links and formal diplomatic relations must be complemented by people-to-people contacts and cultural relations. The country is fortunate to have two distinct strings to its overseas diplomatic bow, the mission and the British Council.
This week, copies of the annual report for 1997–98 will be distributed to hon. Members. The report sets out the purpose of the British Council, which dates back to its royal charter. That purpose is to promote a wider knowledge of the United Kingdom as a forward-looking and dynamic democracy, and to advance the use of the English language. Drawing on the country's intellectual capital and immense creativity, we reinforce its positive role in the international community through cultural, scientific, technological and educational co-operation. The British Council works with partners in the United Kingdom and overseas to build long-term relations with people and institutions in other countries. They value mutual benefit, basing their relationships on openness and excellence in all that they do. I hope that hon. Members will have time to study the annual report.
The British Council now employs nearly 5,000 staff in 230 offices in 109 countries. The English language is a major cultural asset: it is the language of business, of diplomacy and of science. English language teaching is a major British export. Many organisations teach English overseas, but the British Council is unique in being able to combine a global network of centres that teach English to the highest standards. Last year, the council taught 1.1 million class hours in its 127 teaching centres worldwide. At any one time, more than 130,000 students are learning English in those self-supporting centres.
Through the centres, the council provides a shop window for English educational excellence; but the impact of its teaching extends far beyond the classroom. Many students are the opinion formers of the future, and will go on to assume positions of influence in their own countries. Many more will visit Britain on business, on holiday, to study here or to contribute to Britain's share of the increasingly significant international education market, which is estimated to be worth £7 billion a year. It was because of concern for east Asian students that, in March, the Government—with a significant financial contribution from the British Council of £300,000—announced their one-year scholarship scheme to help students from Malaysia, Korea, Thailand and Indonesia who were suffering and whose courses were in jeopardy.
English language teaching has been vital in promoting British interests, and continues to flourish. Let me now deal, however, with another area of the British Council's activities, with which I was particularly engaged in my previous role as Secretary of State for National Heritage.

Mr. Phil Willis: Does the right hon. Lady agree that one of the most important things that the British Council can do for the emerging democracies is to link them with our educational qualifications and examinations system? Is that not one of the issues that the council will take up, especially in such countries as Russia? Russian qualifications need to be comparable with qualifications across the world if Russia's young people and, indeed, adults are to move into other economies and democracies to work and to live.

Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments. Qualifications provide a passport to further opportunities, and it is vital that they should be internationally recognised. As in so many other areas, the British Council's contribution provides a quality standard and an assurance of integrity. That is often valued by countries seeking to provide universally recognised qualifications and standards.
The British Council's cultural diplomacy has been influential. When I visited Japan in 1996, I discovered that the William Morris exhibition from the Victoria and Albert museum was likely to have as many visitors in Tokyo as it had in London. The same is true of the great exhibitions from the British museum. Cultural activities provide a platform for sympathetic interest in and respect for Britain. Sir Geoffrey Cass gave a splendid account of the contribution of the Royal Shakespeare Company in Tokyo in opening the doors for commerce and further profitable relationships.
Also in Japan, the festival UK 98 is a year-long programme of celebratory events, managed by the British Council and the embassy, including conferences, art exhibitions and, importantly, a focus on science education. Concentrating on science as well as the arts and English language teaching will produce further developments. Our distinguished new director, Dr. David Drewry, has a scientific background and will meet with a great deal of respect in an area in which Britain has an established position and where it will benefit from collaboration around the world.
By establishing Britain as a creative, dynamic and productive nation, we have been able to change people's traditional perceptions of our country. Much comment has


been made about the "Cool Britannia" tag. If that means rubbishing the past and thinking only of the future, it is not appropriate for Britain, but the message that Britain is an exciting country with talent and creativity is important. In my previous role as Secretary of State for National Heritage, I established a committee involving the Department for National Heritage—now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—the British Council and the British Tourist Authority. That committee is moving forward. I am pleased that the British Council is represented on the Government's new Panel 2000. If we want to present ourselves in our best light, holding on to our creativity is enormously important.
That message has been reflected in other exhibitions. At the Venice biennale, Rachel Whiteread won a Premio 2000 for best young artist. Stanley Spencer's reputation has been established in America thanks to the British Council. The royal national theatre has achieved great acclaim among the public and senior politicians in China. There are many examples of how the British Council has changed people's attitude to Britain. The hon. Member for Leicester, West may say more about the important New Images programme in Australia. She is better qualified to talk about that than I am.
On a recent visit to Hong Kong, the Foreign Affairs Committee was struck by the importance of the British Council, its impressive new accommodation, its library and its continuing significant role in the changing situation there.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I had the privilege of being on that visit to the British Council in Hong Kong. It is one of the finest operations that I have seen. I speak as a bit of a British Council addict. I was particularly impressed by the links with young people. The place was packed at half-past 5 that evening, in contrast to some of the other places that the right hon. Lady and I have visited, where we are not reaching out in the same way.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. His support for the British Council is well recognised and appreciated. The approach of the offices is to reach as many people as possible, including the new generation. Many of the European networking programmes are trying to pick up the leaders of the future and influence them while they are still impressionable, so that they have a lasting trust and interest in Britain. We want to play a significant part in the development of nations around the world.
I spoke of Sir Geoffrey Cass's account of the RSC's contribution to promoting Britain in Tokyo and the United States. The work of the British Council has an increasing significance and impact in advancing the Government's human rights agenda. The production of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" in Poland under the authoritarian regime is a reminder of the power of the arts and their role in supporting those under oppression and tyranny. We can be confident that there will be increasing emphasis on that with the appointment of our new chairman, Baroness Kennedy, who is a distinguished international lawyer.
On a recent visit to Kenya and Uganda, the Foreign Affairs Committee sub-group was impressed by the human rights work of the British Council. We met

a lawyer, Mr. Juma Kiplenge, who had been under threat in Kenya. He is on Amnesty International's list of vulnerable people who need to be kept hold of. The British Council arranged for him to go on a scholarship programme to Newcastle, where the college of law has formed a long-term relationship with him and his human rights group. He now has the protection of international publicity and the support of colleagues in Britain thanks to the strategic intervention of the British Council.
The British Council is also using the Foreign Office's human rights projects fund. That is an important development. I welcome the fact that the British Council has been able to manage so many programmes, including an advocacy campaign for children—I was able to open the children's rights exhibition. The British Council has an excellent network of decision makers and opinion formers—the people from whom change will best be achieved for the development of civil society. The British Council is often pivotal.
The Foreign Affairs Committee met the Kenyan branch of the International Federation of Women's Lawyers, which promotes access to the law for women. The British Council has been involved in civic education workshops there, drawing attention to the importance of the role of Members of Parliament. The chairman of the human rights committee was able to visit a UK human rights seminar to strengthen his position on his return home. The House will recognise many areas of activity that are supported and valued.
The nature of the comprehensive spending review and uncertainty about the future have meant sensitive times for the British Council. I am pleased that this debate is taking place today, when much of the uncertainty has been brought to an end. The council is relieved that there will be a small increase in its funding over the next three years. That is a Government endorsement, although the increase is modest and the council remains stretched. With the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it will need to look strategically at priorities, focusing resources on countries and activities of most importance to British foreign policy. The fact that funding is secure for three years is undoubtedly a step forward. However, there will not be money for new work, to invest in buildings or for information technology. I hope that, in such areas, the Minister can find new sources to which the British Council can have access, so that it can play its full part in presenting Britain and promoting the human rights agenda and foreign policy objectives. Economic activities have suffered as a result of the strong pound and the Asian economic crisis, and that has put pressure on the council.
Part of the funding—grant in aid—has been moved from the Department for International Development to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which makes sense for administrative reasons. I should like the Minister to take up the cudgels on behalf of the British Council in one area. A policy change at the DFID has meant that, over the past year, there has been a 71 per cent. reduction in project work money. In 1996–97, it amounted to £84.6 million; in 1997–98, it was reduced to £24.9 million. The reduction has been widely investigated. In summary, it seems that there was knee-jerk hostility among the new regime at the DFID to the use of consultants. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to consider whether the policy can be softened. It is well understood that the donor club approach can have merits, but with such a dramatic reduction in the


amount of money that goes to British Council projects, the British Council's presence and ability to intervene, particularly in Asia and in parts of Africa, will be substantially reduced.
British Council project work comes with great integrity, authority and respect. Its work is done by establishing partners in different countries. Policy is ill judged if it cannot be moderated. I do not believe that, initially, the DFID intended to have such a savage effect on the British Council. If there is no amelioration, hindsight will show that great damage has been done to the British Council's work. I contrast that with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights projects fund, which has resulted in great benefits. The British Council is determined that it will continue to work for the future within available resources, although, undoubtedly, it will continue to knock on Departments' doors. It will also continue to work more broadly with the partners that it has so successfully established.
It is only right for me to pay the warmest tribute to the two leaders who have ensured the British Council's success over the past six years. The chairman, Sir Martin Jacomb, who is to retire next month, has been a source of great wisdom, expertise and judgment in taking the British Council forward. He has been a profound believer in the need to enhance the UK's presence around the world and a very positive advocate of a partnership approach, building links with business and the wider community, as well as with Governments and the academic arts community.
Sir John Hanson, the first director general to be appointed from within the British Council, who retired earlier this year, saw the expansion of the council's presence from 133 overseas offices to 230 today. He overhauled many of the organisation's important internal workings, and was particularly involved in promoting the British arts overseas. For many other reasons, the House and the country are indebted to both those distinguished leaders. I also pay tribute to British Council staff, who move from country to country, taking their expertise, knowledge and commitment to Britain and Britain's interests around the world.
We have seen change; we shall see change again. The British Council is an institution of which we can be proud. In focusing more on science, human rights and Britain's creative role around the world, we should not lose touch with our founding principles. I welcome the fact that so many hon. Members want to contribute to today's debate. I hope that they all continue to be advocates, friends and supporters of the British Council.

Ms Patricia Hewitt: I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), my fellow vice-chair of the British Council, on securing this debate and on opening it with such an admirable summary of the British Council's extraordinary and far-ranging work. Like her, I was delighted to be invited towards the end of last year to take up the post of one of the vice-chairs.
I had the good fortune last summer, when I was in Australia, of taking part in one of the conferences attached to the New Images programme—a year-long event organised by the British Council in Australia, designed to change and modernise the attitude of Australians towards

the mother country, as it used to be known, and of those in this country towards Australia. Speaking as—I believe—the only citizen of both Australia and Britain to be a Member of this House, I know that those attitudes certainly needed updating.
Research carried out by the British Council at the beginning of the New Images programme suggested that young Australians in particular saw Britain as a class-divided society; as a musty old country steeped in tradition, with serious social problems. They saw it as having weak trading relationships, and as the producer of out-of-date products. New Images, a vibrant programme not simply of conferences but of exhibitions, touring cultural projects, virtual exchanges between schoolchildren in Australia and Britain and joint projects on the internet, quite remarkably penetrated more than half the Australian population. It achieved a change in attitude and a measurable increase in the number of young Australians in particular who wanted to visit and to study in this country.
The impact was summed up by one Australian journalist, who said:
Ye Olde Mother Country is undergoing a personality change so dramatic it's breathtaking—as if your old grandmother suddenly started wearing Gucci jump-suits".
We clearly did not get through to him completely, because, in the light of the men's fashion exhibition this week, he should have referred to Paul Smith rather than Gucci. None the less, the programme was extraordinarily striking and successful, and funded almost entirely through private sponsorship, levered in on the back of the public grant in aid that we at the council were able to contribute.
Earlier this year, with the Minister, I had the pleasure of attending the British Council's conference in Prague—a fascinating and useful opportunity to bring together not only people from this country and from the Czech Republic but people from many of the other emerging democracies, the accession countries in the new Europe.
For me, the highlight of that conference was a discussion chaired by another dual British citizen—John Tusa, himself a Briton of Czech origin—on the question of identity, and what it means to be British in an increasingly multicultural and diverse country. For me, to have the opportunity to hold that discussion in a country and a city undergoing such an extraordinary change in its own identity was an admirable example of how the British Council not only contributes through relationship-building to the development of stronger democracies abroad, but learns from that participation and co-operation with people whose experience is so different from our own.
An exhibition took place in India towards the end of last year as part of our contribution to the celebration of 50 years of independence—"The Enduring Image" exhibition of treasures from the British museum, which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in October. That exhibition was of particular interest to many of my constituents, for whom India is their mother country and second home. It brought a different facet of Britain to a country with which we have such a long and close relationship, and was ranked by Indian commentators as among the best of the cultural events during the 50th anniversary year.
As the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey said, the British Council has an extraordinary capacity to complement the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth


Office and our diplomatic missions overseas. It is the Heineken of British foreign policy; it reaches the parts that other bodies cannot reach.
In some of the ways that I have described, we help to promote the reality, not simply the image, of a modern, dynamic, creative Britain. Especially in our work on human rights, we support the Government's ethical foreign policy stance. We promote values that are of enduring importance.
I must mention in particular the council's work on gender issues. We have been instrumental in helping to promote and enhance the position of women politicians and potential women leaders in many parts of the world. For instance, in September 1997 we arranged a high-level two-day meeting in Cairo for women Members of Parliament from this country and their counterparts and colleagues from Egypt, east Jerusalem, Lebanon, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco and Sudan. That enabled them to learn from our experience and us to learn from their experience, and enabled us all to help to devise effective strategies for developing women's position in countries in which they face particular difficulties.
Reema Hamami, head of the masters programme in gender development and law at Birzeit university, has said:
One of the great strengths of the British Council in East Jerusalem is that it responds to local needs instead of imposing pre-selected frameworks. The Council has been an important supporter of work for gender equity and the promotion of gender-legislation, development of local capacity and the integration of gender as a fundamental component in the development process.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has repeatedly stressed that it is vital and central to any effective development strategy that we invest in the capacity and the abilities of women as well as men in developing countries.
I must also mention the council's work in promoting the English language and "education, education, education". One way in which we do that, complementing the English language teaching referred to by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey, is through our extraordinary network of libraries and computer centres throughout the world.
I have had the pleasure of visiting the library in Prague, although, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), I have not yet had the chance to see what I understand is a most impressive building in Hong Kong. Such libraries provide a resource for people in the 109 countries in which we operate, and people can walk in off the street—[Interruption.]

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Lady's admirable speech, but is it necessary for those pagers to go off so loudly in the House of Commons? Are Labour Members sounding a little off-message?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The noise sounds more like a Black and Decker drill than a pager. We shall have it investigated.

Ms Hewitt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Denis MacShane: It is a bit early for the vibration.

Ms Hewitt: I should be delighted to lend the hon. Gentleman my pager, if he would like to experience its delicate low-tone vibration for himself.

Mr. MacShane: That is an offer to take up—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is getting over-excited."] We shall have to give him a Viagra pill as well.

Ms Hewitt: May I return to slightly more serious business, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but she mentioned the facilities in Prague. I visited those before the fall of the old regime, and the role of the British Council at that time in making connections with information and with individual citizens, who often ran great risks in getting access to our library facilities, was most memorable.

Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving that example, because when I was in Prague it was clear that we had been able to build on those relationships, which were established before the change of regime.
I can give another example—from Indonesia, which has recently undergone appalling economic and political turmoil. When the British Council reopened our office and library there after a period of enforced closure, in the first three hours 400 people came in to get back into contact with the outside world through the English language and the British Council resources. That is another wonderful example of the people-to-people relationships that we can construct.
The British Council has now established a website, which receives more than 1 million visits a month. I urge right hon. and hon. Members who have not yet visited it to do so. It is a comprehensive website which acts as a virtual gateway to Britain for millions of people throughout the world.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey also talked about finance and administration. Two years ago, we had the misfortune to undergo substantial cuts in the British Council budget, but they were entirely absorbed within the United Kingdom operation; they did not fall upon the overseas operation. As a result of that painful and difficult process, we are now confident—and our confidence is upheld by independent audit—that we are running the most efficient possible operation.
We are a public-private partnership in action. The grant in aid that we receive from the Foreign Office—and which, until the comprehensive spending review, we also received from the Department for International Development—is more than matched by the funds that we raise and earn through our own trading in services and enterprise.
Like the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey, I regret the fact that changes in the way in which the Department for International Development is organising its programme support to developing countries have produced a sharp downturn in the Department's demand for our services, particularly for project management


services in parts of Africa, the middle east and India. Those changes result from the shift in development philosophy—which began before the election—away from specific projects, which require project management, towards sector development programmes in partnership with the recipient Governments.
I hope that, in the new development world, there will still be a real need for the expertise that the British Council has brought to bear through the services that we have offered in international development for several years—even if, in future, those services are delivered through recipient Governments, rather than brokered through the Department.
In particular, I warmly welcome the settlement for the British Council announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the comprehensive spending review statement yesterday. It is immensely welcome. The British Council had been planning for a standstill budget—that is to say, a cash-limited budget that would stand still in money terms but fall in real value. Had that been the situation, we would have had to start cutting into programmes in other parts of the world. That threat no longer faces us.
Instead, we have not just the inflation-proofing of our budget, but more than £5 million of new money over the next three years. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has said, that is welcome and will enable the council to retain and build on its extraordinarily valuable work. It will not permit, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, investment in our estate, buildings and information technology, which badly need modernising. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he and the Department would look on it favourably if the British Council were to come forward with a proposal to fund that necessary capital expenditure through a formal public-private partnership. It seems to be admirably fitted for that approach, and I hope that it will be taken.
Following the comprehensive spending review, we know what the budget will be for the next three years. We know also that the Foreign Office wishes to focus its activities, both geographically and in terms of theme. It is vital that the British Council and its leadership engage in a dialogue with Ministers and with the FCO, to look at how we focus our work around the world. We want to ensure that we do everything as superbly as we currently do the best of our work.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey referred to the new leadership at the British Council. Like her, I pay tribute to the director and the chairman—who have retired or are about to do so—and to our new chair, the noble Baroness Kennedy, and our new director, Dr. David Drewry. The new leadership, in a closer and effective partnership with Ministers and our sponsoring Department, will be able to ensure that, for many years to come, the British Council continues as it has done for the past 60 years—to promote the best of Britain to the rest of the world.

Jackie Ballard: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), a member of the board of the British Council, apologises for being unable to stay for the whole of the debate owing to Defence Committee business.
Two years ago, I probably knew about as much about the British Council as the average member of the British public—I had heard of it, but was unsure what it did. Then I was asked to help train women in Jordan who were potential parliamentary candidates. The event was run by the British Council, in conjunction with the Jordanian national forum for women. Among other things, it involved campaign training—on a purely non-partisan basis—discussions on the role of the free press in a democracy and the importance of scrutiny to ensure a fair and free election system. There were about 60 Jordanian women involved, and they learned a great deal from the five-day workshop. I also learned a great deal about the country and the people of Jordan, and about the respect and affection with which the British Council is regarded in other countries.
I want to concentrate on the importance of the British Council's work on gender issues, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt). I wish to touch on that because of my personal experience working for the British Council, and also because I know of the importance that the Government attach to gender equality and to Britain's responsibilities arising from the Beijing declaration. Women's access to decision making and their legal rights are at their forefront of the British Council's work in social development worldwide. The British Council is also keen to make a significant contribution towards the battle against domestic violence.
In the past three years, 3,000 women campaigners and politicians world wide have received training through the British Council. In Nigeria, for example, that has led to 100 women forming a cross-party movement to get more women into Parliament. It would be interesting if we could emulate that in this country and have a cross-party movement from within Parliament to continue the work done by the 300 Group. In Nepal, the British Council provides police training in gender sensitivity and the handling of domestic violence, combined with radio broadcasts to increase women's awareness of their legal rights.
The British Council plays a key role in helping to secure respect and influence for Britain. It works with those who take decisions and shape opinions, or with those who will be future leaders of their country as well as with others within the country. However, the work involves not just countries overseas but organising and facilitating visits of policymakers to Britain. For example, in April this year, eight Spanish Government officials—all women—came here to study British methods of dealing with domestic violence, as we are generally seen as a leading country in handling the problem.
In the past year, the British Council has used two vehicles to promote gender equality in Kuwait. With the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it has adopted a women-only policy in the selection for Chevening scholarship awards. Some of us were privileged to meet one of the Chevening scholarship people at a recent lunch held by the British Council in the House. It has also sponsored a focus on health care for women. Other gender-based work has taken place in Israel, the Palestine territories, Egypt and Mexico, among other countries.
The hon. Member for Leicester, West mentioned a high-level meeting of Anglo-Arab women Members of Parliament in Cairo last year. I am sure that the delegation from the Arab counties was high-level. Looking at


the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and myself, I am not sure whether others would think that the delegation from Britain was quite so high-level in terms of access to decision-making.

Mr. Soames: I don't know about that.

Jackie Ballard: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I was hoping for such an interruption. That fascinating two-day meeting was designed to plan strategies to enhance women's participation in politics, but also to foster greater understanding between Britain and the Arab world.
If I have a criticism of the British Council, it is that it does not do enough to publicise its existence or its work to British parliamentarians or to the British people. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) on securing this debate, which I hope will solidify the Government's support for the British Council and help to increase public awareness of its role as an integral part of Britain's international effort.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Two things make me very proud when I am travelling overseas: the British Council and the BBC World Service. Those two outstanding external forces are the best in the world, and we should be proud of them. I, too, have visited many British Council offices, especially in the middle east, and I pay tribute to the office in Gaza—a desperate place at the moment—where the council does an extraordinary job in the community, both in arranging cultural exchanges and in teaching English.
I have a few thoughts for the Minister. Is he confident that the name British Council rings true in its representation of a vibrant country? The word council is academic and intellectual; it gives the wrong impression. Will he consider whether the name is appropriate as we go forward into the 21st century?
There are five deposit libraries in the United Kingdom, including the great British library, but there could be a sixth—a virtual library for the British Council. It would cost very little money; it could be either the British library's on-line service or the council's own virtual library of books and magazines, which could be electronically delivered round the world. One notices a disparity in the number of books between the various offices and a lack of books in English—some of the history books were written in the 1950s. A modern on-line service in every centre would be sensational, and would not cost us much.
Given the recent soccer world cup and the fact that FIFA has more members than the United Nations, will the Minister reflect on how little the British Council uses sport, despite the fact that it is a great international language? I pay tribute to the Penguins international rugby club, which I know well and of which I am a member. It will be 40 years old next year and has made 56 overseas tours—it is currently touring Chile and Brazil. It always pays its way and always sends coaches into schools to sell the game of rugby union. We could use the council to help our football world cup bid for 2006 or our Olympics bid for 2012. We do not utilise the great sports, many of which were created in this country.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), I do not have the advantage of having seen the most recent annual report of the British Council, so my starting point in examining its role and leadership—I shall touch on its relevance to an ethical foreign policy—is the 1996–97 annual report, which states:
The purpose of the British Council is to promote a wider knowledge of the United Kingdom and the English language and to encourage cultural, scientific, technological and educational co-operation between the United Kingdom and other countriesߪ The Foreign and Commonwealth Office…is the Council's sponsoring Department.
The report later stresses that members of the board
must be British citizens…chosen from among those who occupy positions of recognized eminence in British educational, professional and cultural life… Appointment to the offices of Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Vice-Chairman require the approval of the Foreign Secretary.
A recent publication, "The British Council in Russia", refers to the fact that the British Council lists among its "main priorities" the promotion of "democratic values" and of
Russia's transition to a market economy".
Who is to be at the head of this multi-million pound, taxpayer-funded exercise in the export of democracy and market-oriented values? Hon. Members have referred to Baroness Kennedy, about whom I want to make some remarks. I have written to inform her that I would be doing so, and I shall not refer to anything that has not been published or stated openly in the press.
When it was announced that Baroness Kennedy would be appointed as chairman of the British Council, the new director general, David Drewry, said:
This is a great opportunity for the Council and Helena's impressive track record and leadership qualities will help us enormously in projecting Britain's strengths worldwide.
On 21 April, the Financial Times described Baroness Kennedy as a
Blairite lawyer and human rights activist".
It predicted:
Her appointment is likely to reinforce the role of the British Council in the government drive to 're-brand' the image of Britain which, in her words, 'is no longer of men of a particular class'. The impact of the Blairite baroness, who gained her peerage last year, is likely to be most felt in the human rights work of the Council which arranges exchanges of lawyers with foreign countries.
An intriguing profile by Harriet Swain in The Times Higher Educational Supplement of 22 May stated that Baroness Kennedy
has become a symbol of a feisty woman, determined to expose the anachronisms of this country's institutions, and a heroine for the underprivileged.
It explained:
She has worked her way into many of this country's most powerful institutions from a standing start, and is determined that they should become more open to the type of person she represents… 'You have to take an institution by the throat to get it to change,' she says. 'You have to have a radical agenda for reform.' Throughout her career, she has chosen to work at reform from the inside, and as a result has incited some criticism. Some believe"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I become very concerned when hon. Members read articles into the record. That is


not what a debate is about. The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase. Moreover, he must be careful about making personal remarks about a member of the other House.

Dr. Lewis: I thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said, I notified the noble Baroness of the remarks that I intended to make, but, given the time shortage and your advice, I shall move on.
I want to declare an interest. I used to be a consultant to a group called the Media Monitoring Unit, which investigated whether the BBC and ITV were observing the provisions for due impartiality on politically contentious subjects. During that time, I came across frequent references to Helena Kennedy, as she was then.

Ms Hewitt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Baroness Kennedy's appointment was made after open advertisement and an extensive search? It was made on the unanimous recommendation of the search committee of the board of the British Council. Is he also aware that, as the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said, the British Council is not a party political body? It has been supported and valued by Governments of all parties for the past 60 years. Will he cease his slur on the noble Lady and make a valuable, rather than a tawdry, contribution to the debate?

Dr. Lewis: The hon. Lady has made her speech and she is welcome to intervene on mine if she wants. However, I am talking about the facts, which, summarised, are these: only a decade ago, Baroness Kennedy was actively involved in the International Association of Democratic Lawyers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman. The title of the debate on the Order Paper is
The work and future prospects of the British Council",
and he should not use it as an opportunity to attack someone. He may, perhaps, do so on another occasion, but not in this debate, which was secured by his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). I really think that he is overstepping the mark.

Dr. Lewis: Again, I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a week or so, the noble Lady will head the British Council, a multi-million pound organisation, so I do not know on what occasion it would be more appropriate to point out some of the things of which the selection committees and the people who elected her unanimously were not aware. Those things I shall list briefly and then—no doubt to the delight of those hon. Members who are present—I shall conclude my remarks. Baroness Kennedy actively participated in a leading Soviet-front organisation, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers—

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Lewis: No, I will not give way any further. If hon. Members do not want me to criticise the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, they should take

issue with the Labour party, which banned it as a proscribed organisation and a communist front from 1952 until 1973.
For three years in the 1980s, Baroness Kennedy chaired the Haldane Society of so-called Labour Lawyers, which is in fact the British arm of the Soviet front, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. In the early 1980s, a curious announcement appeared in the personal columns of the Morning Star, congratulating Helena Kennedy on the birth of her son, from the Covent Garden branch of the Communist party.

Mr. Wyatt: What is the relevance of all this?

Dr. Lewis: The relevance is simple: if we appoint someone to head an organisation promoting abroad the values of democracy, reform and the free market, as is alleged to be the case in some of the British Council's literature, past membership of communist front organisations and the British Communist party is a relevant consideration. No one mentions these things, because these days such people reinvent themselves.

Mr. Savidge: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did the hon. Gentleman say that Baroness Kennedy was a past member of the British Communist party, and would he like to retract that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for me to decide whether an hon. Member is in order. The hon. Gentleman is not out of order in what he has said so far. If he is out of order, I will not be long in notifying him.

Dr. Lewis: I invite Baroness Kennedy to say to the community at large whether she now repudiates the affiliations that she had through those years of the cold war and recognises the fact that she should have had nothing to do with organisations such as the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, or whether she thinks that it is satisfactory to change her opinions and her political clothes with the fashions of the day.
I make no apology for having raised these matters. Ministers, from the Prime Minister to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, with no hesitation whatever, have raised political activities in which I was involved 20 years ago whenever I have attacked them. I am not being appointed to run an important organisation, and Baroness Kennedy is. It is right that she should disavow her disgraceful political record of support for communist organisations that supported regimes whose murderous activities left a blot on the history of the 20th century.

Mr. Ben Chapman: In another career, I spent many years working in embassies and high commissions overseas, most recently in China. In each instance I worked closely with the British Council, and especially in China, because, by Chinese regulation, the council was part of the embassy and operated from the same building. Wherever I served, everyone to whom I talked saw the council in the most positive light.
It is commonplace to say so, but many of the leaders of the countries concerned studied in Britain with the council's help. Many countries have benefited from


training provided by the council or have projects managed by the council. In appropriate places, the council has had a distinctly commercial edge to its efforts: for example, in exporting British education and training or promoting British publishing. In many places, that has been part of a collaborative, innovative effort to increase our invisible exports, and I see no harm, and much good, in that.
More recently, I worked in Manchester, where I saw the British Council in a different light: not as an administrator of aid or a manager of projects but as an important figure in the landscape and a major employer in a prestigious, purpose-built building, appropriate for the reception of foreign visitors and the promotion of the United Kingdom. The building was designed as the council's main office, if not its head office, and was part of the regeneration of Manchester and the north-west.
During my time in Manchester, I witnessed the destruction of much of the council's operations by cuts in grant in aid. The council rightly decided to take the brunt of the cuts in the United Kingdom rather than in its teeth operations overseas so a 9 per cent. cut overall became a 25 per cent. cut at home. Overall, the council has lost 40 per cent. of its staff over the past six years.
The restructuring process has left the council with buildings and information technology systems that no longer project an appropriate image of Britain. That cannot be right. Perhaps more important, the council may now be unable to exploit opportunities to develop new activities with overseas partners. The cuts left it without the ability to play to its strengths.
The public expenditure settlement was a considerable setback, but it is not the council's only problem. Grant in aid represents only a third of its income. It will be damaged further if there is a reduction in its project management role and its ability to attract contract income. It may be right to promote greater emphasis on working partnerships with overseas governments in poverty, education and health, and to lay stress on multilateral rather than bilateral aid, but there is certainly a value in aid with a UK face.
Any reduction in English language teaching has the potential to cause harm, and not only to the council. It is right and proper—and indeed expected and desired overseas—that English language teaching should be undertaken by people from the home of that language, who speak British, rather than American, English; that is of great commercial benefit to us.
It is often said that we attract inward investment because of, for example, the availability of sites, our flexible work force and our higher education, but a principal factor is the fact that we speak English. The investors are trained to speak English and feel comfortable in a location where English is spoken.
The British Council is lean, businesslike, disciplined, IT-based, highly professional and highly respected. Its role in human rights, governance and the promotion of women's rights is exemplary, but it needs the tools to do the job. The increased funding provided by the comprehensive spending review might not be all that it wanted, but—set against the background of prudence in financial management and the need to put money into health and education, as well as an increased aid

programme—the settlement is generous and, in real terms, a grant increase. It must surely be welcomed, both absolutely and relative to what has gone before.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: This seems to be a fashionable week for the Conservative party to do some mass apologising. It is not my place to apologise for the appalling speech of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), but I am sorry that the previous Government's treatment of the British Council stands as a blot on an otherwise admirable record.

Mr. Savidge: rose—

Mr. Soames: No, I will not give way.
The previous Government failed to see what an extraordinarily powerful arm of British diplomacy the British Council could be. When I was Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I travelled extensively, especially in the middle east and in eastern Europe, and it was always a great source of pride and admiration to see the work of the British Council, often conducted on a shoestring but achieving remarkable results; for that very reason, it was a soft target. I am delighted that the present Government have given it more resources. They are slender resources when one considers the massive increases in other areas, but we should be grateful for what is, after all, a real increase.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who said that, in the quiver of arms of British diplomacy, the World Service of the BBC, the British Council and defence diplomacy have a terrific part to play in tandem with Britain's largely exceptional and brilliant, but mostly unrecognised, diplomatic effort, which buys us so much more than we deserve overseas.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), in a good and supportive speech, concentrated largely on gender-based issues. I hope that the British Council will not become a quasi-politically correct organisation, promoting overseas some of the more loopy British fairy-tale ideas of the moment. It needs to balance its efforts between presenting what is traditional and remarkable, culturally and historically, about Great Britain, and presenting our modern success and what we stand for in the world. It must not be some quasi-autonomous organisation promoting women's rights throughout the world. That has a place, but it must not take the lead in an organisation that is meant to present a balanced view of everything that this country stands for and that people overseas see in it.
Finally, the Ministry of Defence will not thank me for saying this, but, on the argument as to whether a type 23 frigate or the Royal Shakespeare company should visit a country, on some occasions the value of the former is inestimable and cannot be over-exaggerated, but, generally speaking, a visit by the latter, or any of the other great cultural institutions of this country, does more good for Great Britain overseas than almost anything else we could imagine.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On 2 July 1935, 63 years ago, the inaugural meeting of the British Council took place in St James's palace, when the


then Prince of Wales agreed to become its patron. The chairman, Lord Tyrrell, is reported as saying that he was
encouraged in the undertaking by a small grant from the Treasury of £6,000",
the active collaboration of six other Government Departments and generous donations from private individuals. The council used that foundation to establish the platform for later work. At the meeting, it is also reported that it had already been able to bring a party of Swedish landowners and gardening experts to this country.
I think hon. Members will agree that the British Council has made considerable progress since those early days. Its distinguished patron is Her Majesty the Queen and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said, it can now be found in 230 towns and cities in 109 countries, helping to win for the United Kingdom a sizeable market share in the global education and training export business, while its primary role in our cultural diplomacy is unparalleled. Therefore, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment Debate on the work and future prospects of the British Council, which is particularly apposite following yesterday's spending review. I was disappointed to find only one mention of the British Council in the White Paper, which states, at page 73:
The British Council will have a key role to play in presenting the new image of Britain.
Judging by the contributions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House today, it deserved a slightly larger mention in the document.
I shall take a few moments to highlight the variety of work carried out by the British Council and to draw on a personal example, as many hon. Members have done. I must record my thanks to the staff of the council in Oman who supported me when I visited that country as an Education and Employment Minister in my efforts to help consolidate the Omanis' adoption of the British national vocational qualifications scheme. That scheme certainly highlights one of the most successful and perhaps slightly less well-known aspects of the council's work, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said.
The NVQ and GNVQ unit in the British Council in Oman was set up in April 1995. The council had convinced the Omani Government that the way to indigenise the work force was to provide training related to future work possibilities and that the British GNVQ and NVQ system was the ideal model. GNVQs were introduced into the five technical and industrial colleges there and NVQs provided on-the-job and pre-job training. The British Council unit there offers finance training leading to qualifications offered by the Association of Accounting Technicians and the training is open to all Omanis. The council also has a contract with a large oil company to train its staff, which shows how well regarded it is. The unit also offers business administration qualifications, information technology and English language training and works with a number of companies and Government organisations, such as the Muscat municipality.
The council's NVQ unit became the first accredited overseas centre for the delivery of international management programmes within the NVQ framework.

The unit is also an accredited training and development lead body centre, which means that it can act as a consultant for other training units that want to become accredited NVQ centres and can also train personnel to be trainers or assessors. Consequently, the council works closely with other Omani institutions.
The net effect is that the centre is very successful and is recognised by the Omanis as a quality operation, providing a supporting role to its indigenisation programme. The unit is also impressive because it is self-funded on a full cost-recovery basis. Since 1995, its income has increased by 300 per cent. At any one time, 400 students are being trained directly by the council, with conservative estimates putting the number benefiting indirectly from the British Council's operations at around 10,000. That is impressive and is a fine example of what can be achieved in a country with which we are proud to have such good relations.
When I was in Oman, the director was Mr. Clive Bruton, who expertly led a first-class team. He has since moved on to Nigeria, where, yet again, the varied and valuable work of the British Council can be seen in operation, this time under more adverse circumstances. The Nigerian operation is my second example. We are all hoping for the re-emergence of a stable and democratic Government in Nigeria, and the British Council is playing a significant role in engendering the conditions necessary for the realisation of that aim. For example, in March 1994, it organised a major conference on human rights, which led directly to the formulation of a common human rights curriculum for all law graduates, and to increased contacts with local human rights organisations.
The council has four priorities in that area. The first is to support those organisations that are trying to reduce corruption in Nigeria. The second is to train Nigerians in conflict management techniques, in which they have already had a notable success when, in Zangon Kataf—I hope that my pronunciation is not off beam—they managed to get opponents round a table for the first time for four years when they had been killing each other instead of negotiating. The other two priorities are to train and inform human rights workers and to assist the Nigerian Government to make the transition to democracy through assisting the training of elected officers to the local government associations and, in particular, through the training of women. I mention the latter as other hon. Members have done so and there is no doubt that, as women become more involved in the political process, the likelihood of conflict diminishes. I am sure that we would all wish British Council staff in that region and the director, Mr. Bruton, well in that vital work.
In the short time available, I have highlighted two examples of British Council work, but we know from the contributions of other hon. Members on both sides of the House about the variety of work that it carries out so successfully. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to give some assurances that that and future work will not be jeopardised. I referred to the fact that the spending review White Paper only made a small mention of the British Council and I understand that there will be a small increase in its funding, but much has been made of the fact that Overseas Development Administration contracts have reduced by about 71 per cent. I hope that the fears raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey about the major drop in Department


for International Development contracts will give the Minister an opportunity to enlighten us on what can be done to redress that.
The Foreign Office section of the spending review contains a clear indication that certain posts will be closed to reflect this Government's new priorities. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us which will be closing and what effect that may have on the work of the British Council. Do any of the envisaged closures threaten any British Council presences? I hope that he may be able to guarantee that no posts will close and that there will be no reduction in the overseas staff. I also hope that he may have time to spend a moment on the new priorities for projecting a new image of Britain and how he envisages directing the council that its work should change.
As a supporter of the British Council, I hope that the Minister will respond positively. I hope, too, that that valuable institution continues to go from strength to strength. It represents the best of Britain throughout the world, and brings inestimable benefits to Britain, both in good will and for our economy.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I am delighted to reply on the Government's behalf, and grateful to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) for initiating the debate. The Government commend the contribution of those hon. Members who serve on the British Council, as well as the work of other hon. Members who regularly contribute to the council's work both here and overseas. I will not be able in the time available to cover all the points raised in the debate, and I may have to save some answers for any future occasion on which hon. Members can again raise the points made today.
It gives me great pleasure to state the Government's appreciation of and support for the work of the British Council. The council is going through a period of change and development under a new leadership team. Dr. David Drewry took over as director general in January on the retirement of Sir John Hanson. Sir Martin Jacomb will retire this month after a distinguished term of office as chairman, and I pay tribute to his enthusiastic service. I warmly welcome the appointment of Baroness Kennedy as his successor following the unanimous decision to appoint her.
The House will appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) who set the record straight following the disgraceful speech made by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who demonstrated how isolated he is from the House and how isolated his politics are from the British people.
Hon. Members have spoken eloquently about the British Council. Its activities are at record levels. It operates from 230 offices in 109 countries, which is more than double the 1980 figure of 108 offices in 79 countries. The scope of its work is impressive. It embraces promotion of the English language, recruitment of overseas students, human rights, gender-based work, good governance, scientific collaboration, the provision of libraries and high-tech information services, the showcasing of contemporary arts and much more. When I

visit British posts in the area for which I am responsible, I always make a point of visiting the British Council, and I am always impressed with the commitment of those who work for it, and with the quality of their work. The British Council's work emphasises British excellence, creativity and ingenuity. It enhances our prestige, supports our exports and makes us long-term friends throughout the world.
The council received a financial shock in the 1995 public expenditure settlement, which left it facing a real-terms decline in its combined grants in aid of 16 per cent. over three years. That was later partially mitigated, but the council had to embark on major restructuring to make its sums add up. It shed one quarter of its headquarters staff, and moved to smaller premises in Manchester.
I am therefore delighted to confirm two outcomes of the comprehensive spending review that should help the council. First, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development have agreed that the two separate grants in aid given to the council in recent years should be amalgamated into a single grant administered by the Foreign Office, subject to parliamentary approval. The council has warmly welcomed that move. The funding transferred from the Department for International Development will include an inflation uplift for the three years covered by the comprehensive spending review.
The most immediate effect of that change is that the British Council will no longer be required to report and account to two Departments. Arrangements that were appropriate when the Overseas Development Administration was part of the Foreign Office are less so since the establishment of a separate Department. The change will reduce the administrative load on the council, and will enable it to carry out its activities as a seamless whole.
Secondly, we have reversed the real-terms decline in grant in aid funding. For three years, the council will receive full annual inflation uplifts plus a further increase of £2 million a year. That is the same percentage increase as that received by the Foreign Office. It will enable the council to plan ahead securely, and to seize opportunities around the world.

Mrs. Gillan: The Minister mentioned the cuts made in 1995. Will he confirm that between 1979–95 Conservative Governments increased grant in aid to the British Council by more than one third, which is considerably more than the increase that he has just announced? Can he assure us that no British Council post overseas will close, and that any closure of Foreign Office posts will not adversely affect British Council presence in the relevant countries?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Lady is selective in her choice of statistics. Were she to choose the trend in the 1980s, a different picture would emerge of real cuts in resources for the British Council. If she does not believe me, she should ask anyone involved in the council, who would soon confirm that that was so. The council will welcome yesterday's spending review.

Mrs. Gillan: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I have not answered the hon. Lady's previous question yet. She asked about Foreign Office


posts. We are reviewing our current structure, and the British Council's requirements are among the top priorities of that review. When we make decisions, we shall report them to the House.

Mr. Soames: The British Council needs another review like it needs a hole in the head. It needs stability, and to be allowed simply to get on with its work with more money. The Minister has conjured up the first bit. Will he leave the council alone to get on with the job?

Mr. Henderson: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear yesterday that the public expenditure review is about change in order to receive. No Department is exempt, and it is right that our Departments should modernise along with the country. We need to seek change that will represent our people better abroad. The Foreign Office is right to conduct a review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) mentioned the contracting arrangements undertaken by the British Council for the Department for International Development when foreign aid is ready for disbursement. Procedures are changing, and there will be increasing emphasis on giving aid directly to the recipient countries. Previously, the British Council and others have acted as contractors, but that role will be reduced. As my hon. Friend says, the British Council and other non-governmental organisations have an opportunity to contact recipient countries directly to see whether they can tender for administration of the work. I assure the House that any support that the Government can give the British Council in that regard will be given. There is an opportunity because those schemes need a delivery mechanism. As I think the world of foreign aid recognises, it does not matter how much aid is available, without a delivery mechanism it is often wasted and does not reach its intended destination. There is a crucial role there for the British Council, which, at the same time, can bolster British interests.
The council is taking a fresh look at its mission and long-term strategy. Thanks to our ability through the spending review to provide a firm and increasing level of grant in aid over the next three years, the strategy re-examination has a firm foundation of financial stability. I am confident that the council, with its skills, experience and high reputation overseas, will continue to play an essential role in promoting this country's interests and influence around the world.

Climate Change (Conference)

11 am

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This is an important subject. I hope that the House agrees that it is important to have an Adjournment debate on the Government's preparations for the Buenos Aires climate convention later this year. I hope that this and previous Adjournment debates on environmental matters will set a pattern whereby the House debates important issues before the Government go to major international conferences to represent the interests of our country. The main function of Parliament is holding the Executive to account. That means that, in international negotiations, there should be both pre-conference and post-conference debates so that we can assess what happened and what was achieved. I hope that the success of some of us in requesting such debates will continue to set a pattern.
This is one of the most crucial issues facing the planet. The preparations for the conference are important. If it fails, and the stand-off at the end of the Kyoto conference continues, the outlook is grim. It is a question not only of negotiations but of the will of countries to do something about global warming and the pollution that goes with it. I shall consider four areas of the Kyoto protocol: emission trading; carbon sinks such as forests that hold carbon reserves; the participation of countries in the Kyoto and Buenos Aires agreements; and, most important, the adequacy of the commitments made to deal with global warming and climate change.
This is the greatest issue of our time. It is obvious that the huge growth in carbon dioxide and other global warming gases since the start of the industrial revolution has had an enormous effect. I know that there are those in the House and elsewhere who dispute the notion of global warming and suggest that it is a phenomenon that can be studied in geological time, during which there have been rapid increases and decreases in the Earth's temperature. Clearly, the pattern of weather and climate must be studied, but, like millions of others, I cannot believe that the massive emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels since 1800 has not had a dramatic effect on the world's climate. I believe that it has, and that global warming is so well measured and tested and so widely accepted that it is vital that every Parliament and Government in the world do all that they can to control emissions and to ensure that we live on the planet in a sustainable way. The consequences of not doing so would be disastrous.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may or may not know that I agree that global warming is proven. However, proven or not, we must consider efficiency in energy and the use of resources. It does not harm us to be efficient and reduce emissions, but it might have the most incredible consequences if we do not take such action.

Mr. Corbyn: Clearly, there must be more efficient use of energy and the best technology to try to retain standards of living and activity while preserving the world's environment. I shall return to that because it will be part of the Buenos Aires negotiations.
I want to put some facts on the record. The vast burning of fossil fuels emits carbon faster than the planet can possibly refix it through vegetation—6.2 billion tonnes in


1996 alone. There has been a fourfold increase in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since 1950, and CO2 levels are 29 per cent. above those that existed before the industrial revolution. That figure can be accurately measured using ice core samples from the Antarctic. The concentrations are the highest for 160,000 years. Worldwide temperature measurements show that the temperature rise in general is faster than it has been for a very long time. We reach world temperature highs year on year.
A mass of information and graphs is available. In the 1998 "State of the World", a chapter by Christopher Flavin and Seth Dunn outlines how the emission of CO2 and other pollutants has grown dramatically since 1800 and shows the disparity of that growth in different parts of the world. For example, the industrialised countries of the United States, western Europe and the former Soviet Union have emitted the most over that period. The developing countries are increasing the fastest, although the largest emitters of pollutants are, by a long way, the wealthiest countries.
If we now agreed that all carbon dioxide emissions will be cut by a half in the next century—a major undertaking requiring massive changes in industrial systems and the huge use of sustainable systems and technology to achieve anything like it—carbon levels would be at least 40 per cent. higher a century from now. We will not stabilise global temperature for at least a century. We have made such massive changes to the world climate in the past 200 years that it would take at least 100 years of total commitment by every country and Government in the world merely to stabilise it a century from now. We have set in train a huge change in global climate which cannot be stopped overnight. The conferences and conventions are staging posts in a much longer process.
I could spend the whole 90 minutes available for this debate giving examples of the effects of global warming and increased pollution, but that would not be sensible because I hope that the House and most of the public well understand those matters. I thought this morning as I listened to the radio of new advice about people going out in the sun because of the danger of getting skin cancer. Skin cancers from sunburn are partly a product of pollution. Their high incidence in Australia and the southern hemisphere is partly because of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. There is now also a similar hole over the Arctic. There is macabre humour in sheep wearing sunglasses in southern Chile to protect their eyes, but the problem of skin cancers in the southern hemisphere is serious and likely to get worse. That is a product of chlorofluorocarbon emissions. Even if all CFC emissions were stopped now, it would take several decades to repair the holes in the ozone layer.
Rising sea levels are apparent around the globe. The cost of constructing sea defences will be huge. Sea levels will continue to rise because of the process that we have already set in train. Unless we do something about it, there will be larger sea level rises. The Maldive islands may cease to exist. Coastal lands where millions of people live, such as Bangladesh and river deltas all over south Asia, will be at serious risk, as they already are from hurricanes and other weather phenomena.
The El Niño effect is perhaps better studied and reported this time than ever before, so one has to be careful of believing that things are more dramatic because one has more information. However, a comparison with what has happened in previous times suggests that the problems caused by El Niño are compounded by continuing global warming.
There is clear evidence of warmer summers in the northern hemisphere and slightly less cold winters. There is evidence of melting of the polar ice cap at both poles. It was traditionally just the north polar ice cap that was melting, but there is now melting at both poles. The migration north of warmer summers means big changes. In Alaska, 2.5 million trees have been lost since 1989 because of the growth in the population of the tree bark beetle, which destroys them. The beetle used to reach sexual maturity in two years and therefore bred fairly slowly, but it now reaches maturity in one year because of the warmer summers, resulting in the progress of that destruction. That is just one of many examples, and the generally destabilised weather patterns that go with them.
The melting of the polar ice caps and warming of the sub-polar regions—the tundra—lead to increased emissions of methane, which results in a faster melt. As snow cover deteriorates or lasts for a shorter time, there is a higher rate of absorption of solar energy and thus a warming of the planet. One could give many such examples. The few that I have given show just how serious things are.
In 1990, after years of discussion and debate, the United Nations specified that temperature rises should be limited to a maximum of 0.1 deg centigrade per decade, and overall should be no more than 1 deg. It calculated that that was the largest rise that the earth's climatic systems could cope with; anything beyond that would lead to unpredictable changes. Likewise, it specified that sea level rises should be limited to 20 mm per decade with a maximum of 20 cm above 1990 levels. Unless we are able seriously to reduce and control carbon emissions, those targets cannot be met—indeed, the levels will fall well short of them. If we do not change, by 2060 carbon dioxide levels will double. The situation is obviously extremely serious. This is one of the warmest years on record.
Many people around the world recognise that the pollution and the unstable climate are caused largely by pollution from the wealthiest industrial countries in the world. The world is a desperately unfair place. A quarter of the world's population live in terrible, desperate poverty. Another quarter have a low life expectancy and lead a fairly poor existence. Only the top proportion have a high standard of living. The industrial revolution has taken place in Europe and north America, but it is now taking place in China, Asia and Latin America. Everything that the western Europeans and north Americans went through in the last century is now happening in China, India and throughout south Asia and Latin America.
We have to examine the way in which we run our economies and the unsustainable levels of waste produced in the United States and Europe. Twenty per cent.—one fifth—of the world's population accounts for 80 per cent.—of all pollution emissions. It is not the massed


millions of people in Bangladesh and India who are causing the world's pollution; it is a relatively small number of people in the United States.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The United States represents less than 2 per cent. of the earth's surface. The fact that it produces a relatively large amount of waste—however one likes to categorise that—is not so surprising, but one has to keep it in perspective. The great majority of the earth's surface is not land mass or built on, and, by definition, it does not produce the waste products that the hon. Gentleman is discussing. To describe the United States and, for that matter, the United Kingdom as a major polluter is meaningless in the context of the percentage of the world's surface that they represent. It is a drop in the ocean.

Mr. Corbyn: The oceans cover the majority of the world's surface by a long way, so I suppose that "a drop in the ocean" is a good analogy. To answer the hon. Lady's point, what I am talking about is the proportion of the world's human population. In those terms, the United States is fairly small, yet it manages to create vastly more pollution than the rest of the planet.

Mr. John Gummer: The United States has 4 per cent. of the world's population and produces 25 per cent. of the world's emissions. That is clearly unacceptable. It takes the work of 120 people to service the energy needs of one American, but the work of only one person to service the energy needs of one Bangladeshi. If that is fair, it is a curious kind of fairness.

Mr. Corbyn: I am not defending the system; I am merely describing it. I think that the former Minister's intervention was directed at the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) rather than at me. I am pouring oil on troubled waters. I hope that I am helping Conservative Members out in their minor disputes.

Mr. Robathan: For the first time ever.

Mr. Corbyn: No. Daniel comes to judgment eventually.
I shall move on to a subject that will not please Opposition Members—what we do about climate change now. [Interruption.] It may well please them; I hope so. There are several issues that we have to address. The first is a general one. In 1992, for the first time, the Rio summit took place and some fairly dramatic proposals on sustainability were made. It was a very important conference. Perhaps it should have been tougher and more requirements should have been included in the agreements that were reached; nevertheless, it was an important and dramatic conference. Unfortunately, at the same time, the United Nations largely abdicated responsibility for economic strategy and put all its faith in the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, which believe essentially in a free market economy.
A free market economy is concerned less about the environment than about the profitability of enterprises. It is concerned less about sustainability than about wealth creation and aggrandisement. As the debate continues, we will recognise that the economic policies promoted by those two major institutions are contributing to pollution rather than controlling them. I know that the right

hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) probably does not agree with me. We have had this discussion before, and no doubt we shall continue to have it, but even he will accept that an unfettered free market economy has no interest in protecting the environment—that it has an interest only in protecting and perpetuating itself.
The gap between rich and poor is part of this debate. As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal rightly said, the energy requirements of the United States are so much larger than those of everyone else that one has to ask some serious questions about its commitment and its lack of action since the Kyoto summit, and about what pressure we can put on it.
The United States Senate voted 95:0 before Kyoto that the US Administration should not sign up to any agreement unless it included the developing countries. Kyoto applies only to the developed nations at present. Since then, no ratification has taken place within the US constitution and it is not likely to. We could spend an awful lot of time campaigning around the world to try to embarrass the United States on this matter, but I suspect that it is unembarrassable until more people wake up to the issue of sustainability of the planet.
The United States has very low fuel prices. People have a love affair with high fuel consumption vehicles and industrial pollutants. Enormous pressure has been brought to bear by American big business through lobbyists and the like not to ratify the convention because the United States wishes to retain its current industrial system without any change whatever. That is a huge barrier. We have a huge problem facing us, but that is not a reason for doing nothing; it is a reason for doing more and putting on more pressure.
Unless it is resolved, the current stand-off between the United States and China will have fairly serious effects. I should be interested in hearing from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the outcome of the Secretary of State's recent visit to China and his assessment of the effect of President Clinton's visit. What discussions occurred between the United States and China on their future participation?
Some way forward has to emerge from Buenos Aires. The Globe group—Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment—which is now supported by many African, Chinese and Indian delegates, has come up with four proposals. They are that all countries should set internationally agreed ceilings on CO2 emissions; that carbon emission contraction budgets should be agreed and reviewable yearly, or at least at five-year intervals; that countries should agree on a CO2, emissions budget, so that there can be a degree of trading within it; and that we should set a standard to reduce emissions globally.
I believe that we should be concerned about trading in carbon emissions, which is one of the proposals advanced at Kyoto and since. If we become too involved in such trading, we risk missing the whole point, which is to prevent pollution and to arrest climate change and the accompanying damage, and becoming enmeshed in a debate about who trades what. It is also important that carbon sinks—forest or vegetation cover—should be excluded from any trading, because, if they are included, a country might say that, in return for destroying 100,000 square miles of forest, it would close down a coal-burning power station. We have to protect forest cover, so I


support the views of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth that carbon sinks should be excluded from emission trading.
There is no reason why individual countries should not set higher targets for reducing CO2 emissions. Before Kyoto, the British Government proposed a 20 per cent. reduction; unfortunately, that was not universally supported at Kyoto and we ended up with an 8 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions. However, if individual countries set considerably higher targets, that will help to embarrass the United States into doing more. If we make the whole process of protecting and preserving the environment dependent on the power of the United States lobby—in other words, the rest of the world does nothing until the United States does something—we will watch as the problem worsens. We have to do both—exert pressure on the US to participate while simultaneously campaigning around the rest of the world.
If we are to make an historic contribution to the planet, we have to create a world environment that is sustainable, equitable and, above all, accountable. Currently, much of the world's economic activity is unaccountable and much of the world's pollution is created without regard for anyone else. In proposing that Buenos Aires should suggest measures that seriously address the problem, we are not taking a backward view of protecting the environment or adopting a negative approach—quite the opposite. Kyoto has to be about examining the use of the best forms of renewable energy and technology and the best forms of technology to ensure that energy is efficiently and effectively used, and about ensuring that that technology is available to the entire planet.
I recall an interesting discussion in which I participated some years ago in Uganda. Delegates from all over Africa were talking about how they could develop their way out of poverty—an understandable and laudable aim. They said, "We have to industrialise—we have to go forward," but a group of African-Americans who were taking part said that that was not the way forward. They said that, in the United States, such development had caused pollution and poverty and had created a huge rust belt. What should be available for Africa and the world's poorest countries is the best forms of technology that would allow them to harness agricultural sustainability alongside high-tech communications and industry. We do not have to re-create in the third world the horrors of the industrial revolutions of Europe and north America in order to improve living standards; we should be able to use the available technology to jump a stage and ensure that we live in a sustainable world.
Today's debate is crucial, because it will enable the Government to set out their position before the Buenos Aires conference, and those hon. Members who have come along today will be able to express their views. I hope that it will enable the public to understand that there has been progress and that all the environmental campaigning and the energy put into local Agenda 21 groups and so on is having an effect—that what they do is reflected in what goes on in Parliament and in what the Government do.
When the Government go to Buenos Aires, they will have a mandate to achieve the best possible result, which is to help to reduce CO2 emissions and to stabilise the world's climate change. If we do not achieve that, we will

face some serious and dramatic problems relating to weather patterns and climate change. The world's poorest people will be hit hardest and first, but, ultimately, there will be no hiding place for anybody.

Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the introductory speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and agree whole-heartedly with much of what he said. He referred to four specific areas: emission trading, carbon sinks, country participation and adequacy of commitments. In respect of emission trading, I agree that it is important to cap the proportion of a country's reduction target that can be achieved from that source. If that is not done, there may be problems with Russia and other former Communist bloc countries.
It is important not to be sidetracked by the argument about how much carbon dioxide can be absorbed by carbon sinks, because that is extremely difficult to quantify. However, I would not rule out bringing carbon sinks into the equation in the longer term, because, for reasons of biodiversity as much as anything, it is important to ensure that forests have an economic value beyond that ascribed to logging. Currently, the only value ascribed to many of the world's forests is the value of the trees and, as a consequence, great destruction is taking place. We must not lose sight of that point, but I accept that, at the moment, the economics and the difficulties of quantifying are such that it is unrealistic to include this at Buenos Aires.
In respect of country participation, it is right that the world community has started off by looking at the developed nations, because, by and large, it is the developed nations which have caused the problem and are responsible for the vast increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the past 200 years. However, in the next 20, 30 or 40 years, there will be a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the developing—in many cases, fast-developing—countries. That will make a significant difference to overall world emission levels, so it is important that developing countries are brought into the equation in due course and asked to play their part as well. However, that should not be used as an excuse, by the Americans or anyone else, to blame developing countries for the problems, or to try to impose disproportionate cuts on developing countries' emissions to make up for the profligate way in which the United States and other developed countries, including ourselves, have behaved hitherto.
The hon. Member for Islington, North is right to say that the adequacy of commitments is the most important point. It is a milestone—a "kilometrestone" these days—that in Kyoto we achieved a legally binding agreement from a number of countries on which they will be required to deliver. However, that agreement is loose and shapeless in many respects, so it seems to me that Buenos Aires is about ensuring that the nuts and bolts are put in place. That will be the most difficult part. The test of Kyoto and of whether the world will seriously address the problems is not the initial agreement, even though it was difficult to reach—here I should pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the others who played a part in achieving that—but whether the nuts and bolts can be agreed at Buenos Aires. We can no longer rely on warm words and I am slightly discouraged by the fact that the meeting in


Bonn in June of the subsidiary body of the United Nations Forum on Climate Change did not appear to make much progress.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we must make progress at Buenos Aires, but there will be other meetings of the conference parties before the protocol comes into effect at the beginning of the next century, so not absolutely everything is riding on the Buenos Aires conference, although obviously we hope to make significant progress.

Mr. Baker: I entirely concur with the Minister's comments. I was keen to keep to the title of the Adjournment debate, which refers to the conference because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might have ruled me out of order if I had wandered on to another subject.
On the adequacy of commitments, I find the attitude of the Americans somewhat depressing—not necessarily the Government, but the Senate and the House of Representatives. I was fortunate to be a member of an all-party group that visited the United Nations at the end of last year. I was horrified, first, by the fact that many influential Americans seem still to question whether climate change is occurring. Although there is a theoretical possibility that change is not occurring, there is scientific evidence that it is, and we should plan accordingly. That does not seem to be accepted in the United States, where elected representatives have a curious and inward-looking attitude.
That makes it difficult for this Government and others to deal with the United States Government, who cannot deliver on what they have agreed. The fact that the US has made so little progress since Kyoto is a matter of concern and makes it difficult for others to make progress. As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, that is not a reason for us not to make progress where we can in this country, in the European Union and in other developing and developed countries.
I shall concentrate the rest of my remarks on how the United Kingdom and the European Union can, first, help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally—although I accept that we are a relatively small player—and, secondly, set an example so that, when we lecture others, we can do so from a sound base.
The evidence from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment has been very encouraging. It is clear that those Ministers, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), understand the issue and have been working well. They played a major role at Kyoto and they understand what domestic policies are needed to achieve change. However, there is not the same commitment and understanding in other Government Departments such as the Treasury. The Treasury's commitment to green economics has moved backwards since last July. We do not have a green book. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury appears before the Environmental Audit Committee or the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, she seems to suggest that such matters are for the DETR and fails to understand that they are matters for the whole Government. We need to mesh the

environment and the economy in this country and world wide if we are to make progress. The environment cannot be a bolt-on concern, as it still seems to be for certain Government Departments.
A carbon tax was first suggested in the European Union in 1991. The suggested levy was $3 a barrel, with an increase of $1 a barrel each year thereafter. Since then, we have had no carbon tax, but energy taxes have been introduced in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland and other countries. In the UK, we have limited environmental taxes on energy to road fuel duty increments of 6 per cent. per annum. I am advocating not a massive increase in taxation but a change from a tax on "goods", such as employment, to a tax on "bads" such as pollution. The Environmental Audit Committee has considered such suggestions in detail and I am entirely disappointed by the Treasury's negative response to them. The Treasury likes to think of itself as modern, but it is, to use the words of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), outmoded in its response, and it should update itself. We need to change Treasury policy.
We need also to consider our energy policy. Since 1970, energy consumption in this country has increased by 87 per cent. in the transport sector, 30 per cent. in the domestic sector and 21 per cent. in the service sector, and has decreased by 40 per cent. in industry. The DETR's figures suggest that energy-efficient measures alone could save 20 to 30 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions. According to Greenpeace, a cost-efficiency programme could create 20,000 jobs. The Government's energy advisers, the energy technology support unit—have shown that two thirds of projected energy demand could be met by renewables by 2025.
There is huge potential for changing energy practice and policy in this country, first, in reducing energy consumption and, secondly, in changing energy generation from non-green to green sources. That can be done. Although the Government have committed themselves to an increase in generation from renewable sources, I am not convinced that the recent review in any way shows an understanding of the need to make the drastic changes to which the hon. Member for Islington, North referred.
This is not a time tentatively to take one small step at a time, to take stock and hope that everything works out. We need to take radical, drastic action in a short time. Radical steps would provide many opportunities for businesses to benefit from changing to green technology and to be in the lead in the world. They could, for example, simply change policies and practices in their factories. In my constituency, under the green business scheme—which this Government support, as did the previous Government—£2 million is being invested in an industrial estate in Newhaven. A massive increase in profits has been generated for the companies involved, simply by introducing energy-efficient measures. Those companies are not only helping the environment, but making much higher bottom-line profits. Companies can have their green cake and eat it. My message to those who resist environmental measures is that they are not helping business by doing so. They will help business by encouraging such measures.
Finally, on transport policy, I hope that the transport White Paper will be radical. I am sorry that the Government are going ahead with the Birmingham northern relief road. That is entirely wrong. I hope that


the White Paper will not include schemes to widen the M25. I hope that there will be capital investment in rail. The Government have accepted over many decades that it is right to invest in new roads. They should accept also that it is right to put public money into new rail schemes, rather than leaving them to the private sector.
The Government should put their own house in order. They have made a good start in the DETR, but a much slower start elsewhere. I am confident that, if they do that, we can provide a moral lead, and we must hope that the Americans and others will follow.

Mrs. Helen Brinton: I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has secured this important debate. I am glad to join my colleagues who congratulated my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on his return from Kyoto, where he undoubtedly played a vital part in brokering the eventual agreement on emissions. Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I wish him well at Buenos Aires.
I have two serious concerns. First, as other hon. Members have said, trading emissions will not achieve the environmental benefits that should be the principal aim. I join colleagues in urging the Deputy Prime Minister to press all participating Governments at Buenos Aires clearly to define the principles for trading emissions and to set deadlines for the drawing up of clear rules on trading.
Secondly, I urge the Government to re-examine their proposed energy policies with a view to implementing their 20 per cent. national target on CO2 emissions before ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Specifically, I am concerned because the most important factor in climate change is carbon dioxide, and the single greatest contributor to United Kingdom CO2 emissions is electricity generation. Therefore, the electricity generation mix is absolutely key to the attainment of sensible environmental objectives.
I hope that renewable sources of energy will play a rapidly increasing role in the short, medium and long terms. There should also be a place for coal in the future of electricity generation. Coal may establish itself in a stronger position some time next century when clean burn technology becomes available and the supply of other carbon fuels diminishes. We all share in concern for the coalfield communities, and I hope that the proposals of the task force will be of significant benefit to them.
However, by burning 25 million tonnes of coal annually instead of an equivalent amount of gas, we create about 28 million tonnes of extra CO2 emissions. It does not seem sensible to expect to achieve offsetting reductions in any other sector—according to one calculation, we would need to remove 33 million cars from the roads in order to achieve the same sort of CO2 saving.
That is why I tabled my early-day motion 1512, which calls for rapid reform of the market in electricity so that all sections of that market can make informed planning decisions. At present, there is an effective moratorium on the building of new gas-fired power stations. It is said that that is essential while a fair marketplace is created. However, I understand that it takes several years to plan

a new power station and bring it into service. So I cannot see how there is any danger of new gas-fired power stations competing in the market until that fair marketplace has been created.
I point out that south Wales, the area most affected by pit closures, would also be most immediately affected by the ban on gas station construction if the Baglan bay project does not proceed. Many construction jobs would be lost, as would many thousands more in the proposed attached industrial park. There is no justification for replacing one skewed market with another, particularly if it prejudices the attainment of our lead-setting air quality targets, of which the Government should be rightly proud, and which are surely the Deputy Prime Minister's strongest card in the difficult, but important, negotiations in Buenos Aires.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I, too, compliment the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing this debate. I share his view that it is important to ensure that our politicians receive sound scientific advice before they go off to conferences. Policy decisions that are made on the basis of agreements reached at such conferences have profound implications for our industries and for jobs.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) pointed out that industries involved in fossil fuel production can be severely affected if the Government take the wrong decisions. The implication is that those industries produce substances that affect the environment and must therefore be controlled. Hon. Members who represent areas where such industries are important employers often face a dilemma: by definition, they do not want to see the jobs go, but, by ideology, they subscribe to the idea of global warming, which runs counter to the interests of the industries that they seek to preserve.
On more than one occasion, I have attempted to give an elementary science lesson—dating from the days when I taught science—about what constitutes global warming. We use that combination of words when we are talking partly about the climate—the weather is variable and the climate alters over time. That is caused by forces outside our control. Sun activity varies and one will find that it corresponds with climate changes on earth. When sun spots are active, there are periods of high temperature on the earth's surface. Some people might call that global warming. At other times, we have ice ages, which correspond to periods when the sun's activity is much lower.
The second factor involved in global warming is volcanic activity. People seem to think that there is only one active volcano on the earth's surface that erupts every few years and causes a minor problem that soon disappears. In fact, there are more than 100 active volcanos that, for a short period, cause cooling of the earth's climate. They emit large quantities of sulphur dioxide, which reach to a high level in the upper atmosphere. That forms a screen that prevents the sun's rays from reaching the earth's surface, which causes a period of cooler weather. I see the hon. Member for Islington, North nodding; I am delighted that he agrees with me so far.

Mr. Corbyn: I agree with the hon. Lady's point that volcanos have an effect on our climate. She has not


mentioned—perhaps she was about to—that the emission of large amounts of dust from volcanos into the upper atmosphere also has a shielding effect on the earth. However, if we remove the effects of volcanos by mathematical means, we must agree that global warming is still taking place.

Mrs. Gorman: That may be the case; I do not deny that we have changes in climate. Throughout the traceable history of the earth's surface, there have been minor alterations in the earth's weather. I am sure that the protagonists of global warming would have loved us to be having a boiling hot summer with water shortages. They would have said, "Ah ha, that is evidence of what we are warning you about". However, we are having a rather damp summer—I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman attributes that. I am sure that it has nothing to do with coal miners in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis).

Angela Eagle: The hon. Lady has visited the Department and we have had some interesting discussions about her views. Does she admit that the intergovernmental panel on climate change is seeking to examine, by various sophisticated scientific means, the human effect on climate change and to disaggregate that from the normal, natural processes that she describes? It has detected a discernible human effect on the climate as a result of the activities that hon. Members have mentioned today. Kyoto is about those activities, not the normal fluctuations of the planetary system.

Mrs. Gorman: I subscribe to the Minister's views. However, my thesis, and that of many other scientists, is that the amount of difference that human activity makes to the climate is infinitesimal.
We demonise carbon dioxide, which is allegedly the greenhouse gas. However, the most important of the gases is water vapour. That is hardly mentioned because people cannot demonise the nice clean rain that falls from our skies. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in our atmosphere, constituting fewer than 300 parts per million—or 0.0035 per cent. The substance is extremely valuable to plants and very soluble in oceans. If we want plants to grow more quickly, we give them extra carbon dioxide. Yet we attribute the perceived problems of global warming to that trace gas.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: The hon. Lady's arguments are well known. The intergovernmental panel on climate change has examined those issues in great detail and I remind the hon. Lady that its conclusions are based on exhaustive peer review and consensus among scientists from all over the world. It is not to be imagined that those people do not know about water vapour, for example. In conclusion, I quote Pope to the hon. Lady:
A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring".
That might be relevant to the hon. Lady's remarks.

Mrs. Gorman: I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to undermine my scientific credentials, but I do not really mind.
More than 200 scientists attended the Rio convention, of which 54 were Nobel prize-winners who wrote a dissenting report on this thesis. Their views are ignored

because they do not reflect the populist mood, which is largely fuelled, and certainly influenced, by pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. The views of those scientists do not happen to fit the pressure groups' vision of Utopia—of the earth preserved from the wickednesses of mankind.
Notice, too, that, whenever we speak about pollution, the United States is demonised. Localised pollution does exist; most of it is in eastern Europe, where people continue to use outdated technology and produce especially offensive smoke emissions, and where motor cars are old bangers, which are not being cleaned up as our cars are. All those factors are relevant to localised pollution, but I keep trying to put this in perspective. I repeat: not only is the United States a tiny part of the earth's surface, but the United Kingdom is even smaller. We make up less than 1 per cent. of the globe. Whatever industrial output we manage to produce in this country, we are infinitesimal compared with the enormity of the atmosphere that surrounds our earth, and the other factors involved in climatic change.
Nevertheless, localised climates can be improved, and undoubtedly our car industries have gone to great lengths to remove the particulates that come out of exhaust pipes and chimney pots in order to clean up their emissions, and have succeeded in reducing some of that CO2. Even though, in my view, the case is bogus, they are responding to public pressure.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give her scientific judgment on the fact that it is said that, before the industrial revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 ppm, whereas it is now 359 ppm? Is not that, by any standards, a very significant increase, albeit at a very low level? What effect does she judge that that has on the behaviour of the climate?

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The statistics on the quantity of CO2 before the industrial revolution are extremely dodgy. The best estimates, which were made around the 1840s, were about 300 ppm. Current estimates are around 350 ppm. If the pre-industrial revolution quantity is the equivalent of a drop in the ocean, the current quantity might be two drops in the ocean; such levels are still not great enough to cause serious problems. We divert our attention when we go off on the wrong tack; we should focus, as we do, on making our localised climates much cleaner, and on exporting technology to those third-world countries that can do something to improve the local climate. I have no objection to trying to make the world a nicer place in which to live; I am simply saying that if we demonise the wrong things, we shall end up imposing on our industries expenses that will have a harmful effect on the people whom we represent.
That subject has been raised with me by the Minister and by the hon. Gentleman whose constituency I also could not pronounce, but which I know is a wonderful place to come from. Both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister make valid points, but I want to ensure that Ministers who go off to these conferences are well armed with a balanced view of the underlying science.
In the debate, as usual, the United States has been blamed for not taking enough notice of climate change. It is sceptical about the targets that we have set ourselves


for CO2 emissions. If we were to pursue the Kyoto target of a national reduction of 20 per cent. in a couple of years' time, or whenever it is, the expenses that would be imposed on our industries would make them seriously uncompetitive with those in third-world countries or eastern European countries—the former Soviet Union and China included—and for what? By making those changes at home, we shall have no effect on those countries' heavily polluted local climate. I put it to the House that it is our responsibility to take those points into consideration.

Mr. Baker: Is it not the case that when a business reduces its energy costs, it helps the environment and saves money?

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point but does one reduce energy costs by declaring that factories may not use fossil fuels? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman supports the use of nuclear energy on a greater scale. That is much more environmentally friendly, in the sense that it does not produce emissions of the type that worry him.

Mr. Corbyn: Says who?

Mrs. Gorman: I know that, when I make those points, I am in a minority of one, but that does not mean that I am wrong.
Incidentally, before the industrial revolution, as uncleaned coal was the only domestic and industrial fuel, the atmosphere in our country was so polluted that the air was almost unbreathable. In the 17th century, John Evelyn, the well-known diarist, wrote a famous pamphlet about the smokes of London, called "Fumifugium: or the Inconvenience of the Aer and Smoak of London Dissipated".
We have cleaned things up enormously—we have done so even in our lifetime, and we are still doing it—but we must bear in mind the fact that in imposing such targets on our industries, we could be causing them severe problems in remaining competitive in a world that does not take such a severe attitude to such substances.
I urge the Minister—despite that fact that she has information from the international climate corporation, or whatever it is called, and other organisations—to take into account the fact that the United States and its scientific community are dealing with factual evidence, much of it produced by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA is observing the atmosphere from outside the earth's immediate climate and reporting back to the United States Government. It is warning them that the targets that are being set at conferences on climate change, on the back of partly emotional pressure from the pressure groups and some scientific information, could seriously damage our wealth.

Mr. David Chaytor: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on securing the debate. The issue is of the utmost importance, not just for hon. Members but for people throughout the world. It strikes me as a little bit off that

we are reduced to discussing the issue at an Adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning. I shall return to that point. My hon. Friend described in graphic detail not only the significance of climate change, but the relationship between environmental policy and social justice and between environmental policy and free-market economics. We should constantly keep those issues at the forefront of our attention.
I endorse the remarks of other hon. Members in support of the work of the Deputy Prime Minister in leading the international negotiations, in helping to secure an agreement within the European Union for a 12.5 per cent. cut for Britain and other cuts for other European countries, and in moving the issue of climate change up the political agenda. I pay tribute to the work of all the Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, although I share the reservations of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) about the culture of some other Departments.
I have no wish to undermine the scientific credentials of the hon. Lady from the unpronounceable constituency—the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—but if it is a choice between accepting her view or accepting that of the intergovernmental panel, of scientists in all the leading industrial and developing nations, and of the Governments of all the nations that were represented at the Kyoto conference, I must accept their view. I note that the intergovernmental panel said that, on the balance of evidence, there is a discernible human effect on climate change. If, in years to come, the balance of evidence shifted the other way—which is unlikely—would not the hon. Lady agree that we should reduce our dependence on the burning of fossil fuels? It is important for us to conserve our energy supplies and increase energy efficiency, regardless of whether she accepts that the continuous burning of fossil fuels and the emission of greenhouse gases has an effect on climate change.
It is important that we focus on the concept of climate change, rather than simply global warming. I disagree with the assertion by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North that the issues are now well understood by the public. We have merely scratched the surface of public understanding. The term "global warming" is now fixed in the public mind, but not the implications of climate change in its wider sense.
Several hon. Members representing constituencies in East Anglia have understood pretty quickly that climate change involves not just global warming, but rising sea levels, and that that poses a threat to their political careers far greater than the Boundary Commission, the vagaries of four-yearly elections or proportional representation. We must constantly emphasise that climate change has varied, unpredictable and dramatic effects, which will intensify unless urgent action is taken.
There is a growing awareness that the powers of nation states to influence and control certain policies are increasingly circumscribed, that we are increasingly interdependent, and that therefore there is a need for more international agreement. I fear that our parliamentary structures and procedures have not latched on to that. We need a new approach to the scrutiny of the growing number of international agreements that we have signed or hope to sign. I refer to the way in which the House dealt with the multilateral agreement on investment and other


conventions—the biodiversity convention, the Oslo-Paris—OSPAR—convention and the Basle convention on hazardous waste.
There has been virtually no discussion, in the House or even in Committee, of the increasing number of environmental treaties. Just three weeks ago in Aarhus, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment signed a new convention on public participation in environmental decision making. If we believe in public participation, extending access, increasing public information and establishing freedom of information, we must adapt our parliamentary procedures to ensure that there is scrutiny of draft agreements before the Government sign them and full debate once they have been signed.
With regard to Buenos Aires, there are a small number of absolute priorities, which I hope that the Government will endorse. First, it is critical that emissions trading is not seen as a way out of accepting our collective responsibility for global warming. I endorse the points that were made about carbon sinks and the view that they should not be involved in emissions trading. There must be a cap on the proportion of CO2 cuts that are achieved by emissions trading.
Secondly, because we are dealing with a new area of science and international agreement, compliance is critical. Giving the difficulty of measuring emissions and evaluating the industries and human activities that contribute to them, effective and accurate compliance regimes are crucial. I hope that that will be a priority at Buenos Aires. If an agreement is reached, targets are set and mechanisms are agreed, but compliance systems are not in force, the entire arrangement will lose credibility.
Thirdly, I hope that, in the lead-up to Buenos Aires, our Government and others will try to shift the focus of climate change. Instead of being perceived as a threat and a burden on business and industry, it should be seen as an opportunity. I know that some hon. Members do not support the work of Friends of the Earth, but I commend the recent report launched by Friends of the Earth, "Cutting CO2—Creating Jobs."
In raising the level of public understanding, we must make it clear that the environmental challenges that face us are not threats, but opportunities. Above all, they are opportunities to create enormous numbers of new jobs, and even to sustain full employment. That requires a radical rethink of our approach to economics, but it is well documented and well researched. We must drive home the message that climate change provides opportunities not only for a better environment, but for fuller and more stable employment.
Fourthly, the Government should explicitly adopt the philosophy of contraction and convergence. It has been said that if we are to tackle the problem, the only way forward is to get global agreements for ceilings on the emission of carbon and other greenhouse gases; then get agreements between the industrial and the developing nations, so that the industrial nations gradually contract their emissions. Ultimately, the two groups must converge, so that, by the end of the next century, there is a more equitable global system and a fairer agreement on emissions. Contraction and convergence is the policy that we should adopt.
I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewes about the fact that Ministers, and officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions are ahead of their colleagues in other Departments. Unfortunately, policy will be determined not by the DETR, but by the Treasury. We must continually put pressure on the Treasury to change its culture.
Taxation policy is critical to the achievement of success, and must be shifted away from labour and other good resources to discouraging pollution and encouraging the conservation of natural resources. We must drive home the message of green taxation. Also, as I said in the last debate on the issue, the code of fiscal responsibility that the Chancellor launched at the last Budget must be amended to include a reference to sustainable development. If that can be achieved in the next year or two, it will go some way to satisfying hon. Members' criticism of the slow pace of progress in the Treasury.
Finally, will my hon. Friend the Minister deal with the following questions in her reply? First, what is the Government's view of their 20 per cent. objective? That is not a statutory agreement, but the Government's intention. Does it still apply? Secondly, what is the Government's attitude to contraction and convergence? Will that be their explicit negotiating position at Buenos Aires? Thirdly, will the Government publish their intentions about the range of measures that they intend to adopt in order to secure their 12.5 per cent. target under the recent European Union agreement?
Fourthly, to return to my starting point, it is ludicrous that these issues of fundamental global importance should be squeezed into a Wednesday morning Adjournment debate. Will my hon. Friend try to persuade her colleagues to agree a debate on the Buenos Aires conference in Government time during the spill over period?

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I shall be brief, so that other hon. Members, especially those on the Front Benches, have an opportunity to speak.
I endorse the request of the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) that the Government should take seriously the issue of contraction and convergence—or, to give it its full title, contraction, convergence, allocation and trade. The UK has an opportunity to take the lead in the matter. The policy of contraction and convergence has been adopted by GLOBE International. That is the nearest we can get to an internationally agreed position among parliamentarians. The sample of parliamentarians is far from exhaustive, but the position that has been adopted is the outcome of serious consideration.
That position includes the principles of equity and sustainability. It is ethically right, being founded on the principle of allocating emission rights on a per capita basis. I cannot envisage any other ethical basis for the trading of emissions. Regardless of whether such trading is ethically right, in practical terms it is probably our best chance of getting everyone on board. It is compatible, ultimately, with the Chinese position, and will probably be compatible with the American position once the Americans recognise that, if an agreement is to be reached so that the climate can be protected—which is as important to the Americans as to anyone else—there must be acceptance of the equity principle and a proper basis for allocations.
I hope that the United Kingdom Government will adopt that principle and use it later in the year, before Buenos Aires. Perhaps, during his visit to China,


the Prime Minister could explore the issue with the Chinese Government, and the Government could then push hard for the principle in Buenos Aires.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for giving Parliament an opportunity to ask questions before the event rather than after it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister, and her officials, for all her letters to me on technical subjects related to these matters.
I should like a number of issues to be on the agenda for Buenos Aires. First—I could not put this more succinctly—there is the question of shit in the Antarctic. There is a real problem of dirt destroying the pristine environment there. Secondly, can the agenda include the effect of sanctions on, in particular, Iraq and Iran? Having visited Iraq three years ago and spent a holiday in Iran last year, I know that those countries are emitting an enormous, disproportionate amount of filth into the atmosphere. If the west imposes sanctions, what can we expect other than the pollution of the whole environment?
I had the good fortune to secure Adjournment debates on both the red book on rare plants—my hon. Friend the Minister should have replied to that debate, but I make no complaint; she was in Luxembourg, and she knows what was said in response—and, on 1 July, on reefs. Could those issues also be put on the agenda?
Given that the conference will take place in Buenos Aires, the subject of the Falklands-Malvinas environment is bound to come up. According to this morning's press, it has been raised with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). I hope that the Minister who goes to Buenos Aires will be well prepared to discuss such delicate matters seriously.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I join all who have spoken in congratulating the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who presented his arguments with characteristic clarity and commitment. I thank him for providing us with a welcome opportunity to debate this subject.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made an interesting point about our method of scrutinising agreements of this kind. I hope that the Minister and the Whip will note his comments, which raise major issues about the way in which we conduct our business.
Let me deal first with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—not because I necessarily agree with her, although I do not think that her account of the dissenting scientists at Kyoto, including the 54 Nobel prize winners, can be lightly dismissed. We should all welcome my hon. Friend's scepticism. She may well be a flat-earther, but she may be a Galileo. It is impossible for us—particularly those of us who are not scientists—to tell which she is. If she turns out to be a Galileo, it will be entirely characteristic for her to be a troublemaker, as Galileo was regarded as a troublemaker. Intolerance of dissenting voices smacks of insecurity in our own arguments, and we do not want that. Let us not

resent debate: doubt, after all, is an integral part of the human condition. A former Conservative Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour, wrote a whole treatise on the philosophical defence of doubt, and we should welcome our own doubts.
I am not a scientist; I am dependent on advice resulting from consensus, and I am struck by what we know for certain. There is no doubt, for instance, that various gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, have an effect on the climate. There is no doubt that the incidence of those gases in our atmosphere has increased. There is no doubt that those increases will continue unless we take action. There is no doubt that there has at least been a coincidence between an increase in global temperature and an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: as has been said, that has been proved by the evidence of glaciers. There is no doubt that the world's oceans act as carbon sinks, but cannot keep pace with the growth in emissions. There is little doubt that the global temperature has risen significantly over the past 40 years. I could go on, but I must be brief.
There is enough solid evidence to prove that the activities of man have an effect on climate change. There is plenty of room for scepticism and for challenging the more conventional arguments, but there is no room for complacency, given the scale of the challenge that the evidence seems to present. We are obliged to do something.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said in response to the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we welcome the Kyoto agreement. As was acknowledged then, it was an achievement that owed as much to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) as to the Secretary of State himself. From an environmental perspective, however, it was only half a loaf. The Secretary of State said that the protocol provided
a number of measures that will help countries to achieve their targets. The measures include the possibility of trading in permits…limited allowances for absorption of carbon dioxide by forests…and provision for developed countries to gain credit by helping developing countries curb their emissions."—[Official Report, 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 130.]
The danger of such measures is that they create the opportunity for fudge. We have heard a certain amount about the so-called window of credibility. How does the Minister see that operating, given that, as yet, many countries have not signed up to the protocol, and, as yet, there is no visible means of enforcement—or even a reasonable consensus about how to measure progress? Such concerns have been expressed by organisations at the more reputable end of the environmental spectrum, such as Friends of the Earth, and we are as keen for the arrangements to work as anyone else.
We come to the debate with a proud record on the environment. Ten years ago this September, the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, said in an address to the Royal Society:
environmental protection will be the most important global issue up to the end of this century.
How prophetic that was. It put this country at the forefront of the global environmental debate. It was followed by the 1989 White Paper, "This Common


Inheritance". It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that that common inheritance remains a subject of agreement between the two main parties and to look after it.
When we were in office, we made great progress on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We introduced fiscal incentives on road fuel duties, to encourage the use of less polluting fuels. I remind the hon. Member for Islington, North that we secured substantial co-operation with the private sector through the advisory committee on business and the environment, first chaired by Sir John Collins of Shell. We demonstrated that industry and the Government can work together for the benefit of the environment and of businesses.
Markets are averse to risk. They are becoming increasingly wary of environmental risk. Investment will not be attracted to businesses with high environmental risk. All businesses are seeking to improve their environmental credentials as part of the workings of the market. Green markets are growing and green investment portfolios are developing and doing well.
The real question is how the Government will achieve their 20 per cent. target. Transport accounts for 25 per cent. of greenhouse gas emissions. There are problems of congestion, overuse of cars and inappropriate land use planning. The Government promised the transport White Paper in the spring. Why are we still waiting for it with bated breath halfway through July?
The greatest contribution to carbon dioxide emission reductions has been the cut in coal-fired power stations and the success of the non-fossil fuel obligation in promoting renewable energy. Where is the long-term strategy on low-carbon energy generation, particularly when the Government seem to have abandoned gas-fired power stations in the short term and are promoting coal? How can clean coal technology help to achieve the Government's CO2 commitments?
The Government say that renewables should contribute 10 per cent. to the nation's energy resources, but we still have no idea when or how. Will the Government break with the anti-nuclear lobby? Nuclear power generation makes a major contribution to carbon-free power generation. What are the major achievements of our EU presidency in relation to Kyoto? What is the Government's strategy on the potential fudges in the Kyoto agreement? When will the Government explain how they will meet the commitment to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction? We are still waiting for the consultation document. When will it be issued? Their duty is to build on our achievements. We have heard much talk, but seen rather less action.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on initiating this lively and interesting debate, and all who have contributed to it.
Kyoto was a huge success—an historic turning point in the fight against climate change. However, it is only the first step in the process, for several reasons. First, much greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will inevitably be necessary in the longer term if we are to stabilise the increase in average global temperatures. We need 60 or 70 per cent. reductions rather than the 5 per

cent. agreed at Kyoto. Secondly, as many hon. Members have said, Kyoto left a lot of unfinished business, such as establishing the rules and procedures for the flexible mechanisms in the protocol, for example on emissions trading. Thirdly, future commitments for developing countries are crucial to the ratification and implementation of the protocol. That issue must be addressed.
The latter two of those reasons are major issues which will take up much of the time of the climate change convention over the next few years, starting with the next conference of parties in Buenos Aires, but not ending there.
As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said at Kyoto, we now have a window of credibility before ratification to allow progress to be made on all those crucial issues, fleshing out the bones, but we have a lot to do. The early signs from the preparatory meetings in Bonn in June were that progress will be slow and that agreement on the key issues is unlikely at COP 4. We have told Argentina, the host nation, that we are ready to help in any way to ensure progress on those important issues at Buenos Aires.
The UK was to the fore in the negotiations at Kyoto, and we continued to lead efforts to tackle climate change during our presidency of the EU. As an early signal of our commitment, my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment signed the Kyoto protocol in New York on 29 April, on behalf of the European Union and the United Kingdom respectively.
At the June Environment Council, we secured agreement on how to share out the EU's 8 per cent. reduction target from Kyoto. Agreeing the deal was important for the EU's international credibility. The target is legally binding and it was important that it was shared out fairly. The UK agreed to a 12.5 per cent. reduction target. We have always made it clear that, while we shall retain our 20 per cent. aim, we shall not increase our legally binding target simply to allow others to do less than is justified. Four member states—Austria, Denmark, Germany and the UK—have national targets significantly above their legally binding targets. If those are met, Europe could do better than its 8 per cent. reduction target.
During our EU presidency, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment steered through the discussions on the EU position on the outstanding issues from Kyoto. They also featured at the Leeds castle meeting of G8 Environment Ministers earlier this year and at the Heads of Government meeting in Birmingham. EU preparations for the Buenos Aires conference will now be the responsibility of the Austrian presidency, but we shall continue to play a full part.
I should like to mention—all too briefly, I am afraid—the flexible mechanisms: emissions trading, the clean development mechanism and joint implementation. The EU supports the use of such flexible mechanisms, which can help to reduce developed countries' costs of emissions reductions. The clean development mechanism, which emerged as a new idea at Kyoto and was included in the protocol in outline, also has great potential for developing countries.
However, we have several concerns about flexible mechanisms. First, we must ensure that they operate effectively and efficiently and that they provide real and


verifiable benefits. Secondly, domestic action must be the main means of achieving emissions reductions for two reasons: domestic action allows us to make the changes to our economies and life styles that are necessary and achievable to tackle climate change in the longer term; and it demonstrates to developing countries our clear commitment to taking action, which we hope will help to persuade them to take on similar commitments eventually. That is why at Bonn the EU proposed a concrete ceiling on the emissions reductions that can be achieved through flexible mechanisms.
We also need to talk about compliance. The Kyoto protocol does not contain a mechanism, but it has a provision for a future conference to approve appropriate procedures. What should those procedures be? Should we seek to promote compliance or should we penalise non-compliance? I am no clairvoyant, but I foresee different views about that and some hard negotiating in the years ahead.
That brings me to the second of the major issues that I identified earlier: developing countries. If we are to limit climate change to acceptable levels—the EU has suggested a maximum temperature rise of 2 deg C and a CO2 concentration of no more than 550 points per million, which is double the pre-industrial level, as a starting point for discussion—developed country emissions need to be reduced substantially and global emissions will eventually need to be reduced by 60 per cent. to 70 per cent.
We need to consider ways of engaging developing countries in the process. Two possibilities are being discussed. The first is to allow developing countries to take on reduction targets on a voluntary basis. The second is for a review of the obligations of parties under the climate change convention in the light of its ultimate objective. Such a review would need to consider what extra commitments would be necessary in the longer term.
The EU favours the latter method. The review would need to be wide ranging and would have to recognise the legitimate needs and aspirations for economic growth in developing countries, the need to eradicate poverty and their common but differentiated responsibilities towards climate change. At the same time, it would need to address the question of quantifying the global objective of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that avoided dangerous interference with the climate system, which is in all our interests. The interesting concept of contraction and convergence would be considered in such a review.
A time of fewer than eight minutes is hardly enough to talk about such fascinating and important issues.

Mr. Corbyn: Speak faster.

Angela Eagle: I could speak faster.
This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I look forward to reporting to the House on future progress. We shall clearly return to the issue time and again.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It follows the Minister's comments. I am not being curmudgeonly in asking whether you would draw to Madam Speaker's attention, for her reflection, the development whereby Opposition spokesmen feel that it is incumbent on them to participate in Adjournment debates—in this case at longer length than the time left for the Minister to reply. Are not these Wednesday morning debates successors to Consolidated Fund debates, in which it was certainly the tradition that Back Benchers raised points and Ministers replied? I do not want to make this a yah-boo issue. It is a matter of Back-Bench rights rather than of getting at Front-Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order. We must remember that any time spent on points of order simply takes time from the following debate.

ART MARKET

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The British art market is large, competitive and successful. It employs nearly 51,000 people and has an annual turnover of more than £2.2 billion. Although some of the UK market is purely domestic, it is unique in Europe and probably pre-eminent in the world because it attracts buyers, sellers and works of art from all over the world. That international market is primarily based in London, and is one of the reasons why London is a world city of interest and vitality. The big auction houses, around which well-known dealers are clustered, are based in this city and throughout the west end. Support services, such as conservation, restoration, framing, printing, specialist services, freight, insurance and packing, which feed off the international market, are much more widely spread. Wider still, many provincial dealers and auctioneers, who form a vast network of businesses throughout the United Kingdom, benefit from such international traffic.
We are debating a major British asset which is similar to the City of London. Both markets are global in their outlook, and both face daily competition from alternative market centres. That is particularly true of art, which is a mobile commodity. A work of art does not have to be sold in London. A seller of a valuable picture, painting or sculpture will weigh up the advantages and comparative costs of selling the work in London, Geneva, Tokyo or New York. It is, therefore, very important that we do nothing to put the UK at a disadvantage—whether through unnecessary costs, regulation or taxes.
The UK art market, however, faces exactly such a threat. The threat comes in two parts. First, value added tax on most imported art is set to double next year from 2.5 to 5 per cent. The 2.5 per cent. rate was negotiated by the previous Government as a temporary derogation or concession which is due to run out in June. I have explained that we rely very much on art coming to this country for resale so, if we tax it—the doubling of VAT is certainly such a tax—dealers and sellers outside the European Union will simply send their art somewhere else. Instead of sending it for resale in London or somewhere else in the EU, they will divert the business to other world centres that are hungry to attract it. There is already evidence that, even at the lower concessionary 2.5 per cent. rate, such diversion is happening. Over the past year, the volume of art entering the UK has fallen by 22 per cent. compared with the volume before the VAT rate was imposed in the mid-1990s. If we double VAT on imported art, the damage will be great.
I ask the Government to fight at least to retain the lower rate for the UK and, if possible, to extend its imposition. I and the art trade generally have no wish to be in a privileged position in the EU. The art trade thinks that it can earn that position through its skills and enterprise. It would be entirely happy for the rest of the EU also to have a lower rate of VAT on art imports. Why cannot the European Union for once go for the low-tax solution instead of endlessly harmonising tax upwards, which simply renders the EU uncompetitive in world terms?
I do not underestimate the difficulties of achieving that solution; it would require unanimous agreement among member states. We are not asking them for additional payments or resources. We are simply asking that they

agree on a lower permitted rate of VAT on imports. The French in particular may be allies in achieving that. Christie's is being bought by a Frenchman who—we are told—has personal contacts with the President of France. Will the Minister ensure that that and other avenues are pursued and that, in particular, other member states and the European Commission are made aware of the damage already done to Europe by VAT? London is not just a British city; it is a European Union city. Other member states should understand and have sympathy for retaining the successful global position of a European asset.
The second threat facing the British art market comes from a European Union directive to impose droit de suite—artists' resale right—on all member states. Under droit de suite, if a work of art is resold, a percentage of the price is supposed to be collected by an agency and paid to the artist or his heirs for up to 70 years after his death. That is the theory, but, in practice, collection costs are very high and very little money tends to be collected, especially for poorer or less well-known artists. The resale of any valuable work of art tends to take place in an underground world so that no levy can be collected—or worse, the sale is transferred abroad to centres where droit de suite does not apply. Someone selling a Picasso or a Matisse, faced with having to pay a levy in London, will simply not sell it here. The sale will be transferred to Geneva, New York or one of the other centres.
British sellers of art who are already based here will take their works elsewhere as well. Works will not be exchanged through the auction houses or other dealers in the United Kingdom, but transported to other centres where the levy does not apply. If that happens, the artist will get nothing out of it; the auction sales will simply take place in other centres. Christie's and Sotheby's already have American assets and conduct many sales in New York. Their owners will not suffer, but the people working for them in London will. The office staff, the experts, the porters, packers and other employees will lose their jobs. All the dealers who rely on the international traffic will either shut down or transfer to New York.
The proposal is crazy, damaging and short-sighted—but it is a real threat, because, although I would regard it as a tax matter, which should, therefore, be decided by unanimity, the European Commission has ensured that it is categorised as a trade matter, and so can be imposed on us by majority vote. The Commission is supported by France and Germany, which already have droit de suite.
The basic failure has been the failure to see that tax harmonisation is making the European Union uncompetitive in world terms. What is the point of extending a levy and imposing it on the United Kingdom, when the beneficiaries will be not other member states, or even the European Union in general, but the New York art market? The proposal is entirely barmy.
The Minister has a good reputation for understanding the issue and for fighting our corner. I hope that he will be able to tell us what he has been doing to act on his concerns about the matter and to find allies elsewhere in the European Union. I hope that he will be able to show us that the Government as a whole have a policy to deal with the problem. It should have been raised during the British presidency of the EU; perhaps it was. If so, I should like a report on what happened. After all, the Government say that they have tremendous influence in Europe; let them turn that into practical action.
The art market is certainly united. The British Art Market Federation has been campaigning hard on behalf of all sectors of the art market, and its president, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), is attending the debate. I hope that he will contribute to it in a moment or two.
As so often happens, responsibility for the issue in Government tends to be a little fragmented. The Treasury is responsible for VAT, so I hope that it is pursuing the threat to double the rate of VAT on most imported art. The Department of Trade and Industry deals with droit de suite and has been monitoring progress on the directive which, to my regret, has already been through the Council of Ministers once. It has also been through the European Parliament, which agreed and authorised it with a few suggested amendments.
The directive is now due to come back to the Council of Ministers, and it is crucial that, by that point, we have made allies of several other member states that either do not have droit de suite and may, therefore, regard it as a threat, or for other reasons realise that the interests of the European Union as a whole require us not to extend the principle to countries where it does not now apply.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport should certainly not only have a watching brief on the health and vitality of the art market, but vigorously fight its corner within Government and more generally. I hope that the House is united behind the case I have outlined. What we need from the Government is an equivalent united and determined high-level campaign to defend a British success story and a vital British asset.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), whose debate this is, and to the Minister, for their kindness in letting me intervene. I declare an unremunerated interest in the Register of Members' Interests as president of the British Antique Dealers Association and also of the British Art Market Federation, which was created in the final year of the Conservative Government so that the Government—which primarily means, as my right hon. Friend said, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury—could have a single body to deal with on behalf of the British art market, much of which is concentrated in my constituency.
It is not for me to say why I was invited to take on the role, but I was the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise in the mid-1980s, and was, therefore, involved in a long saga about VAT and the art market at that time. Latterly, I was also the Secretary of State in what is now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells has been eloquent in his comments on the problems, and in this brief intervention, I will confine myself to observations on our interface with the European Union. First, the art trade in the other European countries envies us the quality of the relationship in this country between the trade and the Government. In that respect, I commend the Minister, who has won golden opinions for the robustness with which he stands up for our interests.
However, I am afraid that the envy of others draws attention to the inability of their trade to educate their Governments, and thus the Commission, about the art market. My right hon. Friend's pamphlet contains an illuminating exchange between the British Art Market Federation and the Director-General in Brussels. The Director-General turned aside our anxieties by saying that only the major auction houses were concerned—whereas in fact, the major auction houses are the only parties involved that are protected against those considerations by virtue of the fact that they have businesses in Switzerland and the United States as well.
Secondly, the Governments affected in some other European countries, unlike our Departments here, do not work out a common position, as has happened in the past and as I hope is happening now.
Thirdly, it is important not to drive the art market out to the United States and Switzerland, because essentially this glory belongs to Europe, and sending it offshore does Europe no good. I shall finish with a quotation from Burke:
the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever.
We have every confidence in the Minister as our champion.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I thank the right hon. Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for their kind remarks about me as the Minister who co-ordinates Government activity in this area. I am not sure whether I got that job on the basis of my skill and knowledge of the industry, or because I am the same size as Toulouse-Lautrec. Whatever the reason was, I have committed myself with some gusto to work with hon. Members on both sides of the House and throughout the Government to try to resolve the issues in a positive and effective way.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wells on his success in the ballot. The debate is, indeed, timely; there has been much press coverage lately about the art market, and the right hon. Gentleman has had some hand in that by publishing his pamphlet, "A Market under Threat". I welcomed the opportunity for our officials in Government to work with the right hon. Gentleman in the process of developing his arguments in the pamphlet, which has brought a greater knowledge of the issues at stake to a wider group of people. Now there is wider coverage of the issues; no longer simply the art markets talking among themselves or to the Government.
The Government have made their position on the art market clear several times. Lord Haskel spoke about the resale right and import VAT on works of art in a debate in the other place last December. Indeed, this is the fourth debate to take place since the Commission tabled its proposals for resale a little over two years ago. Numerous parliamentary questions have been asked, and the Government have done all that we can to make our position clear not only to Parliament, but to all concerned.
Policy towards the Commission's proposal to harmonise the resale right has not changed. Like the previous Government, we do not want to be compelled to introduce the right. The Commission's proposals are


misconceived, and we have said so many times. We oppose them and want to see them defeated. As for the seventh VAT directive, that is a legacy which we inherited.
I understand the concern of the right hon. Member for Wells for the future of the art market. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to restate the Government's position on the resale right, to update the House on developments and to deal briefly with import VAT on works of art. Value added tax can be a complex and difficult subject, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his time as a Treasury Minister. Although VAT is, of course, a Treasury responsibility, my Department has an interest in its impact.
The seventh VAT directive is a particularly complex package, which is not confined to VAT on imports of art and antiques. The Government are aware that the temporary derogation won by the United Kingdom to levy an effective rate of 2.5 per cent. on art imports—instead of the otherwise harmonised minimum of 5 per cent.—was welcomed at the time by the trade. However, we are aware also of concerns expressed since then about the apparent impact of that VAT change. We are conscious of the trade's anxiety about the possible consequences of further changes after June 1999—the time when the United Kingdom derogation from the harmonised minimum rate of 5 per cent. expires.
When the seventh VAT directive was agreed, an undertaking was secured that the European Commission should provide the Council of Ministers, by the end of 1998, with a report on the impact of the relevant provisions of the directive on the competitiveness of the Community's art markets in relation to third-country art markets. The Government take this issue very seriously, and place considerable importance on that undertaking. The United Kingdom will take an active part in the review, and will ensure that the British art trade's concerns are heard.
On relations with the French, officials have been in contact with their counterparts in France about a range of issues arising from the seventh directive. We expect the discussions to continue as the Commission review progresses. The Government have urged, and will continue to urge, the Commission not to press ahead with the resale right proposal without due regard to the VAT review. Unlike the Commission, we do not believe that artists' resale rights and import VAT should be considered separately. It is important to know what the combined effect will be on competitiveness.
The Government are in no doubt that the Commission's proposal on artists' resale rights would damage the international competitiveness of the London art market. It would result in trade switching from London, not to other European capitals, but to New York and Switzerland—as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster indicated—and as far afield as Hong Kong and other centres where the right does not exist. According to estimates made by my Department, British auctioneers and dealers could lose earnings of up to £68 million per annum, resulting in 5,000 job losses.
The European Parliament has, to some extent, recognised the danger of the Commission's proposal. Parliament adopted the original proposal on First Reading—albeit with 28 amendments, some of which were designed to limit the impact on international sales.

The Commission has now produced an amended version, incorporating 21 of the Parliament's amendments in whole or in part.
One of the Parliament's amendments rejected by the Commission would have based the royalty on profit rather than selling price, with a lower threshold and a lower rate for higher-priced works. That would have reduced vendors' costs—a step in the right direction, although not enough to prevent damage to European Community art markets. New recital 5a of the proposal calls on the Commission to seek an international agreement on droit de suite. Clearly, concerns about displacement of sales would be removed if the EU's main trading partners also adopted the resale right. Unfortunately, international agreement is unlikely to happen in the time scale of the directive, if at all. In the meantime, our markets would be lost.
The Government have been successful in focusing the debate in Brussels on the economic impact of the resale right. The Commission's amended proposal was introduced at the one meeting on this subject under our presidency. It enabled the opponents of harmonisation to draw attention to studies made by my Department. Those have been circulated to all member states. We have called on member states to make, and to make available, cost-benefit analyses of their own.
We even have offered to help the Commission to prepare an impact assessment, although this offer has not been taken up. We will continue to press the offer on it. There is growing recognition among member states about the potential damage to the international competitiveness of Community art markets, and there is a realisation that the overall economy of the EU could be damaged. Nevertheless, most member states continue to favour harmonisation. Only the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands are opposed, although most member states have some difficulty with the wording of the proposal.
The Government will continue to discuss with colleagues in a proactive way the need for them to consider seriously the arguments we have put about the the damaging impact that the Commission's proposals would have on the European market. The Government support the internal market, but harmonisation must bring a genuine benefit to business and commerce. The proposal simply tilts the competitive advantage in favour of non-EU countries.
Harmonisation, if it is needed, would be better achieved by abolition of the right. However, we recognise that some member states have had the right for a long time. They do not want to give it up, and we have no wish to force them to do so. Equally, the Government do not see why the right should be imposed on us. The case for harmonisation has not been made, but the threat to a significant European Community market—the UK art market—is clear. The Government will continue vigorously to oppose this damaging proposal.
The Commission contends that its proposals for a banded royalty system, under which the royalty rate would be lower than the highest sale price, would avoid displacement risks. The Government disagree. For high-value works, the cost of the resale right would greatly outweigh the costs of sending works overseas to be sold, as well as discouraging the import of works for sale in London. However, the Commission is not entirely insensitive to the concerns and has chosen to incorporate the Parliament's new recital 5a in the amended proposal.
It is not possible to predict if and when a common position will be reached. Even if a common position is agreed, it is not possible to predict whether what has been agreed by the Council of Ministers under qualified majority voting would be acceptable to the European Parliament under the co-decision procedure. Currently, it is not yet clear whether there would be a qualified majority in favour of the proposal as it stands. Although those member states opposed to the measure in principle fall short of a blocking minority—for example, 26 votes—some other member states have problems with certain aspects of the proposal. In the meantime, we will continue to argue strongly against harmonisation.
We will not give up on the matter. We will have positive dialogue—if necessary, on a one-to-one basis—to persuade our colleagues of the rightness of our case in respect not just of the UK market but, as has been mentioned, the ripple effect across the whole market of offering a competitive advantage to those outside the market. That was the never the purpose of the single market harmonisation proposals. They were about giving benefit to those within the Community—not to those outside it.
The Government know the importance of listening to industry. It is central to our policies that we should develop partnerships and work together. Shortly after taking office, Ministers met representatives of the art trade. We understand their concerns for London's future as a leading international art market. We have made it clear to them and to others that we will continue our opposition and that we will maintain a regular dialogue.
I make this offer to the right hon. Members for Wells and for Cities of London and Westminster. I have an open-door policy on the matter. If, after today, there are

matters that I have not covered which they want to discuss—for example, internal market distortion issues, which it has not been possible to discuss in the time allowed—I should be more than happy to meet them collectively or individually. It is in all our interests to pool all our intellectual and Government resources to get a victory in the case that we have positively and eloquently put on behalf of the UK industry.
I would genuinely welcome the opportunity to work with both right hon. Members and the industry to try to ensure that the matter is resolved positively, and that there are none of the damaging effects that some people are trying to impose on our industry.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am most grateful for the Minister's positive response. We will do all that we can to get the trade to respond to his generous open-door policy. I was particularly pleased to hear him say that he regards the VAT threat and the droit de suite threat as two sides of the same coin, because the competitiveness and position of the British art market depend on the seeing-off of both those threats. The Minister clearly will not let them be picked off one by one; he regards them as a single issue. I am somewhat encouraged by the Minister's reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to intervene; he must not make another speech. Does the Minister want to respond to that intervention?

Mr. McCartney: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of our common approach, I completed my remarks to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to wind up, even though this is an Adjournment debate. I should have said that I was sitting down, but I now sit down again.

Northampton (Train Services)

Ms Sally Keeble: I very much appreciate the opportunity to put the case for better train services to Northampton. I do so not only as the Member of Parliament for Northampton, North and a sometimes disgruntled train passenger, but as chair of the Northampton rail users group, which campaigns for better train services. In that capacity, I pay tribute to both Railtrack and Silverlink for their commitment and good grace in regularly meeting the group and in supporting our efforts to promote the cause of rail transport. We want faster, more comfortable and more reliable trains, yet current plans for the rail network mean that we may not see any real improvements in our lifetime—indeed, the service may become even worse.
In terms of everything that the Government want to do for economic development, transport and housebuilding, Northampton is a town of great strategic importance; it has enormous potential and the skills, talents and resources to expand and excel. It has had to reinvent itself economically several times. It has been a market town and a boot and shoe town; it is now a distribution centre and, increasingly, a financial services centre of some importance.
Because Northampton is, literally, at the crossroads of the country—it is situated where the M6 meets the M1—it has established itself as an important distribution centre for road transport. However, it is not a centre for rail transport, as freight trains go straight through Northampton to the DIRFT inland rail freight terminal further north. Indeed, inter-city trains have the misfortune to be diverted on to the Northampton loop only because of main line engineering works; people frequently tell me—in a bad mood—that they have passed through my constituency because their train service was delayed owing to engineering works.
If the Government seriously want to get people off the road and on to public transport, which I completely support, they would make great progress if they persuaded people in Northampton to use the trains rather than to belt up and down the motorway. I confess to being an offender myself; if one needs reliable transport, one has to use the roads because of the problems with the train service.
Northampton is a growth point. It has a population of almost 250,000, and it is projected to grow by a further 30,000 households in the coming years, which means that an additional 120,000 people will live in the catchment area of Northampton station. That represents a huge growth in population, which must bring jobs if it is to succeed. It must also bring the high-quality public transport links that will be so necessary for the new millennium.

Mr. Tony Clarke: I applaud my hon. Friend and the rail users group for continually raising this issue. Does she agree that there can be few towns of the size that we are talking about—200,000 plus—that do not have access to a main line station? Despite all the efforts of Silverlink, unless such access is given, commuters and travellers will continue to be dissatisfied.

Ms Keeble: Yes. That has been a constant cause of complaint, not only by the rail users group but by the

many people who use the trains from Northampton to travel to London or Birmingham and who face extremely long journey times on uncomfortable trains.
I have no doubt that, without high-quality public transport links—trains—the town's economy will be stunted and our ability to fashion for ourselves a good future will be limited. Equally important, a good train service is essential for people in Northampton in their day-to-day lives. People who travel to Milton Keynes, London or Birmingham for business or pleasure currently have to try to tolerate the intolerable.
The easiest campaigning that I have ever done has been on the train service. People are more than willing to give their views, and the complaints are overwhelming: the trains are dirty and uncomfortable; they lack basic facilities, so that people cannot even get a drink of water, let alone a cup of the old British Rail coffee; and above all, trains run late or—even when they run on time—take too long.
My hon. Friend the Minister may say that Silverlink is the most improved train service—an average of 92 per cent. of trains arrive on time—but, like many people I know, I seem to spend much time travelling on the other 8 per cent. The most spectacular lapse in service that I suffered occurred when I was travelling to Northampton to speak at a press conference encouraging people to use public transport. There was a points failure on the main line before we got on to the Northampton loop. The train was diverted to Rugby and, by the time I arrived in Birmingham, the event was long since over.
My argument is not with Silverlink, even though, from time to time, I have criticisms of it; Northampton's train problems are much more deep seated. When the railways were built, Northampton was left out, as the Minister knows well—he has strong family links with the town. The canal owners refused to sell the land that would have enabled the main line to come through Northampton. The current franchise structure is wrong, and we did not benefit from the previous upgrading of the main line. Moreover, like the whole network, we have suffered as a result of the lack of investment under the previous Government and their failure to fashion a future in which public transport could become the mainstream of transport.
Complaints about the current service are short-term grumbles, however; they are as nothing compared to the long-term grievances that people have as a result of the plans to upgrade the west coast main line. Any improvement to the rail network is, of course, welcome, as are new ways in which to attract investment into that essential piece of infrastructure. Many towns on the line will benefit, although some—Milton Keynes is one—also have reservations about what is happening. My wish is that Northampton receives its share of the benefits, but I fear—indeed, I expect—that, unless the Government offer strategic direction, there will be a worsening of rail services to the town.

Mr. Brian White: Many of the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) work in Milton Keynes, so it is in Milton Keynes's interests that the rail link to Northampton is improved. This is not a question of


Northampton versus Milton Keynes or Rugby; an upgrading of the service is in the interests of most towns on the line.

Ms Keeble: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have a common interest. As out-of-London development grows and more substantial employment and industrial centres are built up, transport links between our towns will become increasingly important, so I am grateful for the support of Milton Keynes.
The passenger upgrade scheme—PUG 2, as it is called—will affect both Northampton and Milton Keynes. It is an agreement between Railtrack and Virgin, which balances the need for investment with the need to protect the public interest. That is the tightrope that the rail regulator had to walk in his recent report and, although I see the merits of many of his arguments, I believe that many more public interest guarantees are needed, certainly for Northampton and possibly even for Milton Keynes.
Under the plans, the service to Northampton could become slower—I should say even slower. Eleven of the 14 slots an hour on the fast line will go exclusively to Virgin, and it seems that the remaining three slots will go to the highest bidder, with no assurance that Northampton trains will have a look in or be able to afford them.
The service to Northampton could become less frequent. The rail regulator has talked about maintaining the passenger service requirement, but that included only one train an hour during peak hours and one off peak. In contrast, Silverlink is to be congratulated on running three trains an hour during peak hours and four off peak. If we were to get the approved number of trains, as set out in the requirement, we would get far fewer than at present.
Silverlink is in a weak position to compete. Its franchise runs for only seven and a half years, as opposed to the 15 years given to other train companies, so it has no certainty that it will still be running the service after 2005.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will point to the present review, ordered by the rail regulator, to consider faster services for Northampton, but I share the general scepticism about that review. There is no strategic direction on what it must achieve, and it is obliged to produce only a report, not results. It is being tacked on to an in-principle agreement between the rail regulator and the richest and most powerful transport conglomerate in the entire country. At the very least, it should have preceded the in-principle decision.
There is no commitment to extra money for infrastructure improvements; there is an obligation to include discussion of it, but no indication of where the money is to come from or whether it will be provided. There is no commitment to extending the franchise period or giving Silverlink the investment incentives that delivered the agreement with Virgin. The review is investigating how to get Northampton trains to travel faster on slow lines with loops in them. Some of us suspect that the loops could become parking bays.
The review team could simply say that it had fulfilled its mandate to review the position, but that it was not possible to get the trains travelling any faster. The review starts from too low a base and contains no vision or guarantees for the future of transport for Northampton.
I seek four commitments. The first and most important is a guarantee that the Northampton train service will have access to two of the hourly slots that are left on the fast lines on the west coast main line. Without that, the service could be consigned to the slow lane of history.
Secondly, if the company concerned—at present, Silverlink—cannot afford to pay the access fees for those lines, which will be extremely lucrative and expensive, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising should consider providing financial support or at least facilitating arrangements such as those that have made the main line upgrade possible.
Thirdly, the franchise period should be extended, to encourage investment in the Northampton services, including trains of inter-city standard. I am well aware that my hon. Friend the Minister could say that many of the short-term grumbles, such as no tables and uncomfortable seating, are entirely matters for Silverlink, but if the company cannot look beyond five more years, it is unlikely to make the investment needed for better trains. I hardly need draw the political comparison about interest in long-term futures that stretch beyond five years.
Fourthly, we need a modest upgrade of the Northampton loop, so that it can take trains travelling at 100 mph, instead of their being stuck at the present 75 mph. As rail travel expands, and people see the standards that can be achieved in train services both here and abroad, they will feel extremely dissatisfied with a very slow train without amenities, especially with journey times that are proportionately far longer than, say, travelling from London to Paris, which used to be a huge journey and now takes only a few hours, while we could still take an hour to get to Northampton in—who knows?—50 years' time.
Those four commitments would ensure that train services from Northampton came in from the cold, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply in some detail about them. We need those assurances, before a final seal of approval is given to the Virgin-Railtrack deal, if we in Northampton are to have confidence in our rail service. The benefits of the west coast main line upgrade will be felt only in several years' time and, given that there is likely to be disruption to the services as the work is done, we need to know now that we will share in those benefits.
The document issued by the rail regulator setting out his support for the Virgin-Railtrack deal talked much about the reasonable requirements and expectations of people in Northampton. It is not reasonable to expect people in Northampton to put up with inferior trains with no tables, fewer litter bins, and no possibility of even getting a drink of water, when the journey takes two hours instead of one—that is not even safe, let alone comfortable—and to wait longer for fewer trains to take them home from work or from a day out shopping in Milton Keynes, London or Birmingham.
Nor is it reasonable for people in Northampton to have to put up with journey times to London of an hour, when, in future, trains from Rugby, for example, will take just over half an hour to do a much longer journey. That is calculated to drive people off the trains and onto the ever more congested motorways.
Underlining all the work that the rail users groups in Northampton and in Milton Keynes have done is a real commitment to the future of the railways and to ensuring


that more people use them, to ease the congestion that snarls up the M1 and is especially bad south of Northampton. There is little prospect of any other measure to relieve the pressures.
Since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £2 billion extra spending on transport yesterday, I should like to put in an early bid for some of that money, to underwrite the cost of providing Northampton with a better train service. The people of Northampton have a right to expect a better train service, and I hope that the Government will give a commitment that, at long last, the town will get the fast, efficient and comfortable train service that people have a right to expect.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss the west coast main line, and Northampton services in particular. As she knows, the subject is not within my normal ministerial responsibility, and I am replying on behalf of my fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who is out of the country. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North will understand that I will not be able to give a full response to all her specific points, but I will ask my colleague to write to her on matters that I cannot cover.
I am sure that all hon. Members present will agree that the current state of the west coast main line is far from satisfactory and is a clear example of the previous Government's consistent failure to promote the vital rail links that are so important to industry and the travelling public. It is scandalous that the plans for the much-needed enhancement of the line have taken so long to put in place.
I know that hon. Members who use the line have had to endure a service that offers poor standards of punctuality and reliability. I find it hard to believe that Britain's busiest mixed railway, providing about 2,000 trains day, carrying both passengers and freight, linking London and the industrial and business centres of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, should still be running on infrastructure that was last modernised in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That is why I welcome the recent agreement between Railtrack and Virgin. I hope that it will provide for people who travel and live along the route a railway that is fit for the 21st century and will encourage those who currently drive between the cities that it serves to choose instead to make those journeys by rail.
Having said that, some aspects of the upgrading are not universally popular, and I applaud my hon. Friend's commitment to highlighting the concerns that exist over the deal. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) and for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), who spoke briefly in the debate, she has met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to discuss those concerns, and she has also spoken to the rail regulator.
Clearly, not everyone along the route will benefit from the improvements offered by the upgrade. Indeed, it must be acknowledged that some services may deteriorate.

As we know, this is not a perfect world and, in making major changes to such an intensively used railway, it will not be possible to meet everyone's aspirations. In planning such a major upgrade, it is important that full account is taken of the needs and aspirations of everyone who has a legitimate interest in it. The arrangements that the previous Government put in place for managing the railway simply do not allow that. They certainly do not ensure that major schemes such as the west coast main line are planned as part of the strategic development of the railway system as a whole.
The agreement to upgrade the line involved two private sector companies, which planned an upgrade that would meet their own requirements. It appears that only after those requirements were met was thought given to the other operators on the line, or the wider needs of the community along the route. Indeed, early drafts of the agreement between Railtrack and Virgin—which were submitted to the regulator for approval—contained no provision for growth in freight services and proposed a deterioration in journey times between London and Northampton. It is not surprising that my hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate were incensed when they discovered that that was the implication of the proposals. I am sure that they and other hon. Members who take an interest in the subject will not be surprised because Virgin Trains—the company for which the upgrade is being produced—does not run freight trains; nor does it serve Northampton, so it had no interest in the concerns of the people represented by my hon. Friends in the Northampton area.
Only the intervention of the rail regulator and the franchising director, together with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, ensured that improved capacity will now be available for freight and that services to and from Northampton will be protected. I realise that that may seem like too little too late, and I recognise that Northampton feels disadvantaged because of the shortage of fast services.
My hon. Friend has made the case eloquently on behalf of her constituents and highlighted the lack of easy access to fast main line rail services. She mentioned the history and the fact that canal operators opposed a direct line to Northampton in the early to mid-19th century, when lines were first being built. Another element, of which she may be aware, was the interest of the Duke of Wellington and others concerned with military factors that the main line served the Weedon barracks, rather than Northampton. It is a curious history in which all of us who are familiar with that part of the world take an interest, but, whatever the history, the result is that Northampton is poorly served for a town of its size and importance because it has no direct access to fast main line services.
The regulator has sought assurances that Railtrack will be able to provide, as a minimum, capacity that can broadly accommodate the existing rights of Silverlink services between London and Northampton including maintaining existing journey times for fast peak-time London-to-Northampton trains. In addition, Railtrack has agreed to undertake a strategic review of passenger services south of Rugby in consultation with key stakeholders, including local authorities. Railtrack is due to report in April 1999, and meetings have already taken place with representatives from the train operator Silverlink and Northamptonshire county council to


discuss those issues. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will contribute to that review, if they have not already done so.
I am sure that all hon. Members here today would agree that that is not the right way to go about planning a £2.2 billion infrastructure project. The west coast main line is both a major project and a major step towards making the railways fit for the 21st century. The potential of the project for inter-city services, the potential impact on local services and the resulting need to achieve a delicate balance of interests illustrate the need for a more strategic approach to be taken to the provision and management of the railways. That is why the Government plan to create a strategic rail authority, which will have responsibility for planning Britain's rail network and ensuring that plans are put in place that take proper account of the needs of everyone who uses the line.
The authority will provide the leadership and direction that the industry needs. It will combine the functions currently carried out by the franchising director and some of those carried out by the Department. In addition, it will be responsible for balancing the needs of passengers and freight users, and it will play a major part in promoting and facilitating integrated transport networks.
In addition to tackling the need for better strategic planning of the railways, we have secured more than £100 million of public support for the rail industry in the next three years as part of the comprehensive spending review settlement announced yesterday. That is designed to lever in additional private sector investment aimed at removing capacity constraints and promoting modal shift to rail. Spending plans for railways, including the new money for rail investment, underpin the Government's overriding goal of attracting more passengers and freight on to rail. There will be further details in the integrated transport White Paper, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister intends to present to the House in the near future. I heard the early bid of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North on behalf of her town. She was certainly aware of the scope for that increased investment in improvements to the rail service. She will realise that I cannot give the commitment for which she is looking, but, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I will ensure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State writes to her about that and the other matters she raised.
I wish to reassure all hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North, for Northampton, South and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), who contributed to the debate, that we will continue to ensure that the west coast main line project is delivered by Railtrack and that the interests of all those who use the network—including Northampton passengers and freight users and people who travel between, for example, Northampton and Milton Keynes—are given adequate weight in the assessment of priorities. We know that that will be difficult under the current rules, but we aim to rectify the deficiencies that we inherited from the old system and work towards ensuring that the new rail authority will help to deliver a truly integrated transport system.

Fishing Industry (Safety)

Mr. Andrew George: First, I thank the Minister for her presence. I appreciate that her colleague, the Under-Secretary of Sate for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who is responsible for shipping matters and would normally deal with such matters, is absent. I ensured that her office was aware of the questions that I intended to raise, very much in the spirit of co-operation as I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that the matter is taken forward to the benefit of the safety of lives at sea in the fishing industry.
I requested the debate with many misgivings as it will place in the public domain private tragedy and grief, but I hope and think that we are coming together in a shared belief that progress needs to be made in the protection of life at sea in the industry.
Last Sunday was sea Sunday, and I was asked to compere a Carolaire in the village where I was born and brought up—Mullion on the Lizard peninsula. We have grown used to tragedy and accustomed to the enormity of grief in the fishing industry. Traditionally, fishing communities come together at times when men are lost at sea. The families of those who are lost experience great solace and comfort from such support and companionship.
However, the world is changing, and the industry has altered greatly compared with the one I remember from my boyhood. Boats go further and are more sophisticated at catching and detecting fish. Fishermen have access to increasingly accurate weather forecasts that help them to plan days or weeks in advance. Most boats have highly sophisticated communications and sonar equipment. Satellite equipment is increasingly being added. Boats have acquired the belts and braces of vastly improved safety technology, including automatically released sonar beacons and life rafts with hydrostatic release units.
Despite that sophistication, and despite technological improvements, loss of life at sea in the fishing industry is high. Last year, 7,809 vessels were engaged in the fishing industry, the lowest figure on record. However, more lives were lost at sea than at any time during the past five years. In a recent parliamentary answer from the Under-Secretary responsible for shipping, I was told that 19 men were lost in 1995, 20 in 1996 and 29 in 1997. I do not want to debate sanitised, impersonal statistics. The Minister will agree that we risk sanitised and impersonal solutions if we fail to recognise that those figures represent real-life human tragedy and grief caused by, among other things, inadequate safeguards in the fishing industry.
Within the past 18 months, 10 men have been lost at sea from my constituency: William Pirrie, Steven Cooper, Philip Benney from the St. Ives-based Gorah Lass in March 1997; Simon Adams lost from a Newlyn trawler, the Prevail, in the western approaches in September 1997; Chris Cripps of Porthleven lost from the Ocean Spray off the Isles of Scilly on 28 October 1997; Robbie Holmes, Vince Marshall, John Todd and his son Kerry Todd when the Margaretha Maria was lost 70 miles south of the Lizard after leaving Newlyn on 11 November 1997; and Joslin Basher of St. Keverne, who was lost from the Heart of Oak, a gill-netter from Helford, within site of land off


the Lizard in April of this year. Those 10 men left 22 children without a father. That is surely the cause for a major inquiry.
Many issues arise from those cases. I have spoken to the Shipping Minister several times, and I know that a consultation paper is being produced. Can the Under-Secretary say when that will be published? The industry, and the families of those who have died, are keen to see lessons learned from the tragedies.
When the Margaretha Maria went down, sea conditions were calm, visibility good and the weather fair. The trawler, which had a highly experienced crew, was lost with no sign on the surface. Its life rafts did not inflate, and its emergency position-indicating radio beacons—sonar beacons known as EPIRBs—did not operate. Such beacons also failed in the case of the Gorah Lass. EPIRBs are fitted at considerable expense as a potential saviour in the worst-case scenario of a rapid sinking, when they are supposed to alert rescue services. Clearly, that is not always so. One Newlyn fisherman commented recently that they give a one in three chance—they may go off and a search be launched, they may go off and be deemed a false alarm, or they may fail to go off at all.
The second problem in the Margaretha Maria case was the difficulty of locating the vessel. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is aware of that problem, and I am glad to see him here. He is also aware of the commercial pressures on the industry, which force fishermen to be secretive about their most productive fishing grounds. That was one of the factors that made the tragedy of the Margaretha Maria more difficult to deal with. The Minister also knows of questions about the stability of fishing vessels and the increasingly heavy gear that some older boats are taking on deck. The marine accidents investigation branch will doubtless learn lessons from the tragic cases that I have mentioned.
I understand that it is customary in Scotland for the lives of men to be insured, as well as the vessel itself. That is not always the case elsewhere. The owners of the Margaretha Maria have received the money for the loss of their trawler, but the men were not insured. The mother of two of the three men lost from its sister trawler, Provider, on 6 November 1995 wrote:
For about ten days after Provider disappeared the weather was reasonably fair for the time of year but no search was made to locate the boat, even though, in the case of the Provider, there was a definite location for the search. This was because the contract to search was 'put out to tender' by the boat's insurers,—that's how it was done. We were devastated. It seemed that the lives—and deaths—of these hard-working men were of no consequence. Had such a tragedy occurred on land an immediate search would have been instigated.
The involvement of the Ministry of Defence in searches for vessels is voluntary. It has no duty to assist. I urged the MoD several times to send surveillance planes to the site where we believed the Margaretha Maria to be. After the body of the skipper was found by a trawler in the area, I pleaded with the MoD to send vessels to search the area. However, the Ministry's involvement is voluntary, not a duty. When search and rescue helicopters do go out, they do not have the infra-red, heat-seeking equipment that could help them to locate men in the water.
The recovery of bodies lost at sea is a difficult matter. I have spoken several times to the Minister responsible for shipping about it as families feel very strongly on the

subject. The Government's position is—although we await their consultation paper—that the sea is a dignified grave for a mariner. However, the Minister will understand that families want to bring their grieving to a close. The sea is not an undignified grave, but a proper funeral is love's last act. Families need that, and are in some cases demanding it. I support those who want a change in the Government's view, and we shall debate that point in the months to come. A lot of soul searching is required. It is not that I am arguing with the Minister because I know that our debate will be co-operative. Where practical, and where there is no threat to the lives of searchers, we must consider the matter. The technology has moved on from the days when the tradition was not to recover bodies from the sea.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The hon. Gentleman puts the case fairly. No one would argue that bodies should be recovered in every possible instance. There may be many circumstances in which they cannot be recovered. Equally, there are some in which they can. We need an organisation to judge the appropriate response to a family's request. Families find that, without such an organisation, they operate in a vacuum. The Sapphire was raised by the petition and fund-raising efforts of the families involved. Through their efforts in raising it and recovering their loved ones for Christian burial ashore, valuable information about the causes of the sinking was found that could not otherwise have come to light. That has already been reflected in the report of the marine accidents investigation branch.

Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to our attention. The recovery of the Sapphire provided evidence helpful to the MAIB investigation. The Margaretha Maria lies a good deal further offshore, 70 miles south of the Lizard in more than 300 ft of water. It would be a highly expensive operation, but the families are determined to consider it. They are raising funds to consider whether it is a realistic possibility. If it provided information helpful to the inquiry, it would be all to the good.
The first and foremost question is the consultation paper. I appreciate that it involves not only the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There needs to be consultation between the two Departments, and I greatly appreciate the presence of the Minister responsible for fishing. We want progress. Every day that publication is delayed and action not taken is another day in which men risk their lives at sea because we are not learning the lessons of past tragedies. I urge the Minister to bring publication forward. She can be sure that I will respond positively and constructively, as will others, especially the families who have learnt from these tragedies. It would be helpful if the Minister could not only say when the paper will be published but give the timetable for the consultation and for turning the proposals into action.
What plans has the Department to assist voluntary efforts to establish ship-to-shore radio systems to allow regular reports on vessel location to avoid what happened with the Margaretha Maria? A FRAPS, or fishermen's reporting and positioning system, has been set up voluntarily at Newlyn by fishermen's wives after that tragedy. Its fund raising is voluntary and it is struggling


to establish itself properly. Departmental support that did not put additional commercial pressure on vessels and respected confidentiality would be helpful.
What assessment has the Minister made of the need to require boat owners to insure the lives of crew as well as vessels? When will her Department publish the redraft of the code of practice for smaller fishing vessels under 12 m? What lessons have been learnt from the previous effort? My discussions with the inshore fleet around Cornwall revealed concern about the expense of inspection and monitoring. It would be helpful if the Department recognised that investment in assisting fishermen with safety features in their boats is money saved in searching for boats at sea later. It is investment well made.
Does the Minister agree that the informal, voluntary arrangements between her Department's agencies such as the MAIB and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency should be established as some formal duty shared by her Department and the Ministry of Defence? The lessons that we have learnt and the cases that I have described emphasise the need to clarify that. Does she agree that lives could be saved if MOD search and rescue helicopters and craft carried infra-red heat-seeking equipment? What assessment has the Department made of the stability of vessels carrying increasingly heavy gear on deck that makes many boats top-heavy? What lessons have been learnt about the failure of hydrostatic release units to operate automatically to provide crews with life rafts in so many recent fishing tragedies? What recommendation will she make on the difficult question of the recovery of bodies of men lost at sea? Where it is practical and does not risk other lives, the Government should reconsider their position.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) for raising this important subject. Although the responsible Minister is on Government business abroad, I am responsible for health and safety. There are many cross-overs between health and safety on the shore and at sea.
By almost any measure, the industry has an unacceptable safety record. Over the past five years, the accident rate for UK fishing vessels has increased significantly. In 1997, there were about 60 accidents per 1,000 vessels, compared with about 45 in 1992, an increase of a third in only five years. Put another way, there is worsening safety with a falling number of vessels. As the number of vessels in the fleet falls, the safety record has worsened.
In terms of lives lost per 100,000 employees, the industry has a worse record than any other sector. In 1995–96, the rate of fatal injuries was 77 per 100,000 fishermen, compared with 23.2 per 100,000 employees in the mining and quarrying industry, which is the next worst category in that year. Last year, 29 fishermen lost their lives, as the hon. Member said. Five have lost their lives so far this year. In considering these sad and difficult issues, we send our condolences to those who have lost their loved ones.
The number of reported accidents to crew is increasing. We may suspect that many injuries go unreported. In the past, the industry was thought reluctant to spend money on safety. The Government's approach to regulating and enforcing safety, which I shall outline, seeks the active and positive co-operation of the industry. Fishing is a potentially hazardous occupation, but it is not good enough to accept that with a shrug of the shoulders. We are determined to reduce the accident rate, and I shall also mention what the industry is doing to help.
The regulations governing safety are enforced where appropriate by a survey and inspection regime, as the hon. Member for St. Ives knows. All UK-registered fishing vessels of 12 m and over in length must be surveyed every four years and issued with a UK fishing vessel safety certificate.
Fishing vessels under 12 m in length are not surveyed, but they must comply with relevant sections of the safety provisions rules that were introduced in 1975. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency carries out a large number of inspections of UK-registered fishing vessels each year—more than 6,000 in the past three years—with effort concentrated primarily on vessels of under 12 m.
Clearly, it is important to ensure better standards of safety for all fishing vessels, but the under-12 m sector remains a high priority as significantly more vessels—the vast majority—fall into this category. The MCA has been considering the safety of such vessels with the fishermen's federations, and I welcome the willingness that fishermen have shown in tackling this difficult and essential issue. Earlier discussions concluded that safety could best be improved by the introduction of a code of safe practice. The code would replace the 1975 safety provisions rules for smaller vessels and would ensure that each vessel was inspected regularly.
As the hon. Member for St Ives knows, a draft code, containing both mandatory requirements and recommendations based on good practice, was sent to all owners of UK-registered fishing vessels under 12 m in length last year. Many fishermen felt that the draft code was too complicated and were concerned about the potential costs. We have listened to their concerns and are now working with the industry to produce a revised code in order to deliver a genuine improvement in safety standards. In answer to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions, we hope to publish that code and the revised proposals in the autumn. I am confident that fishermen will want to take their own safety seriously, and that agreement on the code can be speedily reached. I hope that all vessel owners will realise that it is in their own interests to comply with the code when it is introduced. For larger vessels, we will implement the recently adopted European Union directive, which will establish a harmonised safety regime.
We have also recently implemented EU directives to improve occupational health and safety for workers at sea, including fishermen. Our legislation places a general duty of care on employers, which is new for fishing vessels, to protect the health and safety of workers through, for example, the provision of a safe working environment—including requirements for larger vessels relating to construction and equipment—safe working procedures, training, and instruction.
So far, I have spoken mainly about standards for vessel construction and the equipment carried on board, but it is just as important to ensure that fishermen are competent.


The industry's poor accident record indicates a clear need to ensure that fishermen receive appropriate basic safety training. At the moment, the requirement to undertake basic safety training applies only to new entrants to the industry and serving fishermen born on or after 1 March 1954. A recent review conducted by the marine accidents investigation branch indicated that emergencies were handled well by trained skippers and badly by those with no safety training—rather unsurprising, one might think. The review concluded that basic training covering sea survival, fire fighting and prevention, and first aid should be extended to all fishermen. The MCA is currently consulting the fishing industry on that issue.
Fishermen must be made aware that many accidents can be prevented by following safe procedures and practices. The MAIB publishes regular safety digests highlighting problem areas which it sends to agents, companies, owners, skippers, missions and the fishing press to help to inform fishermen and to prevent accidents.
Fatigue can lead to accidents in any industry and I suspect that it is an especially important factor in the accident statistics in the fishing industry, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which I have already raised. It is clear that the problem of fatigue needs to be dealt with. The Government are considering controls on working time for fishermen in the context of the European Commission's proposals to extend the working time directive to the sectors, including sea fishing, that were originally excluded from it. Any legislation must, of course, be workable and take account of the operational requirements and the share fishermen system.
We cannot hope to improve safety standards in the fishing industry without first gaining the active co-operation of fishermen. The MCA chairs regular meetings of the fishing industry safety group, which is attended by representatives of the industry, other Government Departments and interested organisations. This group, which meets twice a year, allows constructive discussion and consultation on policy developments and implementation, and has produced important proposals such as the draft code of safe practice for vessels under 12 m.
While we want fishermen to take as much responsibility as possible for their own safety, the Government have a duty to provide an appropriate level of regulation and enforce it effectively. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was formed on 1 April this year, by merging the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency. Under the previous structure, the inspection of fishing vessels was the responsibility of the Marine Safety Agency. Its 15 dedicated fishing vessel surveyors, together with other marine surveyors deployed around the coastline, continue to inspect fishing vessels to ensure that they meet all appropriate safety standards.
However, following the merger, there is now also the scope to use the coastguard, which has 64 sector officers deployed around the coast, to reinforce the work of the inspectors. The benefits of this are significant. The coastguard has a major presence on the coast and its officers see fishing vessels far more regularly than do the traditional inspectors. A pilot scheme is taking place on the south coast this summer, which also involves coastguard officers in certain areas of this work.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the consultation paper on sea safety in the fishing industry would be published. I can tell him that it will almost certainly be published next week. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) is wandering around the Chamber. He has just come between the Minister and the hon. Member whom she is addressing. He must be more conscious of what is happening in the Chamber.

Angela Eagle: We hope to be able to address the responses to the consultation paper by the end of the year, but the hon. Member for St. Ives needs to bear in mind the fact that we do not yet know what the consultation will come up with. Some of the suggestions that arise out of it may require primary legislation or changes to particular regimes that will not have a definite timing, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will deal with the results of the consultation paper as quickly as we can.

Mr. Andrew George: Will the Minister expand on the extent to which the consultation paper will cover the issues that I have described in my speech?

Angela Eagle: I am trying to get through the long list of questions that the hon. Gentleman asked me in the time left to us. If I do not, I will write to him with my responses to the rest of his questions.
As for action to prevent accidents, clearly fishing is a dangerous occupation, and risk can never be eliminated. That is why the Government's consultation paper will seek comments from the fishing industry and from those involved in marine search and rescue on possible measures to improve survival rates following an accident. We shall be consulting on the maintenance and use of survival equipment, increased position reporting by fishing vessels, distress watch practices and the proper use and maintenance of key safety equipment. Maintenance is an important issue. As I said, we hope to be able to respond to the results of that consultation by the end of the year.
Some fishermen, sadly, will continue to be lost at sea and it is important that the Government keep under review their policy for locating and examining wrecks for accident investigation purposes, as well as their policy for the recovery of those lost at sea. The Government regard the sea as an honourable last resting place for those it has claimed. We believe that that is consistent with the traditions of seafaring, which recognise the sea bed as a grave. We recognise that modern technology makes possible the recovery of relatively small vessels, but such operations will often be dangerous and costly. Those issues are covered in our consultation paper. I very much hope that we can have a debate within that context.
The costs of a change in policy on the recovery of bodies would be considerable. If it is considered that the Government should fund the recovery of bodies from fishing vessels, arguably the cost should be reimbursed by the vessel's owner. The consequences could be a significant increase in insurance costs for vessel owners. The hon. Gentleman is clearly worried about this, as is the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The issues of cost, insurance costs and safety need to be considered carefully.
In summary, we acknowledge that commercial fishing is an inherently dangerous occupation. The continued high incidence of crew deaths and losses of fishing vessels means that efforts to raise safety standards and increase safety awareness within the industry must be improved. We must maintain an adequate rescue service—which we are doing. The hon. Member for St. Ives made a point about search helicopters. The reason why military helicopters do not carry the heat-seeking equipment that he talked about is that it allows them to be identified by potential enemies. However, they carry other equipment which achieves the same goal, but does not use the same technology. We cannot allow military helicopters to be pinpointed by those who may not have their best interests at heart. That does not alter the effectiveness of the search and rescue procedure.
We must ensure that appropriate safety standards are developed, with the industry's co-operation, and applied, either through widespread compliance with voluntary

measures, or through the enforcement of Government regulation, where necessary. I look forward to receiving the industry's active co-operation and to the results of the consultation paper, which we hope to issue next week so that we can consign as far as possible debates such as this to history.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF EDINBURGH (GUIDED BUSWAYS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Dewar presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to City of Edinburgh (Guided Busways): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 228].

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Inward Investment

Mr. Nigel Evans: What discussions she has had concerning proposals for new inward investment into Northern Ireland. [49019]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Interest in investing in Northern Ireland remains strong, and the Industrial Development Board continues to identify and track opportunities for foreign investment and cultivate positive relationships with prospective investors. I met the US Secretary of Commerce, William Daley, during his recent visit to Northern Ireland. He was accompanied by senior executives of major US companies, all of whom expressed an interest in Northern Ireland as an excellent place in which to invest.

Mr. Evans: I asked for some figures from the Library, which indicate that, over the past 10 years, inward investment in Northern Ireland has been relatively low compared to that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that the recently signed agreement has given fresh impetus to inward investment in Northern Ireland; but that the incidents of the past two weeks, including the tragic deaths of three young children, have set back that potential investment? What lessons have been learnt from the events of the past two weeks, so that such tragic incidents will not be repeated next year?

Mr. Ingram: First, I agree that the Good Friday agreement did give us a tremendous platform on which to build. I also agree that events in recent days and over the past two weeks have certainly damaged Northern Ireland internationally. I say to those who continue to campaign at Drumcree and to those who give them support, either by words or by deeds, that they are damaging the prospects for economic growth in Northern Ireland. I have received information today from a company with which I was in close contact and which was hoping to invest in Northern Ireland; it is now thinking of not doing so because of recent events. I hope that everyone in Northern Ireland—but, more important, those who are causing the mayhem and violence on the streets—hears that.

Mr. David Winnick: Has it not always been the case that religious and political sectarianism in Northern Ireland undermines the possibility of getting the sort of inward investment that is so essential to Northern Ireland? Do not the terrible and tragic events of the past week, including the burning to death of three innocent young children, demonstrate, once again, where religious and political sectarianism is bound to lead? Such terrible crimes as the killing of three children should be a lesson to all those in Northern Ireland, that sectarianism should be undermined in every

way and that both communities should be able to live together, as has been demonstrated by the Good Friday agreement and the election following the agreement.

Mr. Ingram: I agree entirely with those sentiments. To those who are trying to imply that the tragic death of those three young children was not sectarian based, but was somehow linked to other events not associated with Drumcree, I say that that is not the view of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Nor is it the view of the officer carrying out the investigation into those deaths, who has made it very clear that they were sectarian based. Let us hope that they are the last three deaths to occur because of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. Everyone who is associated with Northern Ireland should take that message to those over whom they have influence.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: My colleagues and I join others in condemning recent acts of violence, including the murder of three young children at Ballymoney. Our hearts go out to the family of those children and our prayers are with them.
The Minister will be aware that there have been two recent bomb incidents in Northern Ireland and that the shadow of terrorism still casts itself over the economy of Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that until terrorism is removed from society in Northern Ireland and those who are still intent on the use of terrorism to advance their political agenda have been removed from the equation, the full potential of the economy cannot be developed?

Mr. Ingram: The one very clear answer to that question is that everyone—politicians and public alike—should get behind the Good Friday agreement. It was through that agreement that the people of Northern Ireland expressed what future they wanted for themselves, their children and their grandchildren. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that matter and now to get behind the agreement, as the majority of people have done.

Civic Forum

Ms Margaret Moran: When the Northern Ireland civic forum will be established. [49020]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred the establishment of the civic forum to the shadow assembly. In the period before devolution, the Government intend to consult the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the assembly so that arrangements can be put in hand to help secure its earliest appropriate establishment in parallel with progress made elsewhere.

Ms Moran: Among the death and destruction associated with Drumcree, is it not now more important than ever that support is given to those groups and individuals in civic society who seek to bring about accord, lasting prosperity and a positive view for the community's future? Does my hon. Friend agree that several of the Northern Ireland business community and women's groups working on the front line are to be commended for their work in that respect? Will he ensure


that they are fully supported and enabled to be involved in the civic forum to build a better future for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Murphy: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the Churches, local business and commerce and the Northern Ireland trade unions will play a vital role in the civic forum. I pay tribute to the Church leaders, the Rev. Bingham, the leaders of business and commerce—Sir George Quigley of the Northern Ireland Economic Council and Mr. Chris Gibson of the Northern Ireland CBI—and the trade unions, all of whom have played a significant part in trying to reach a sensible accommodation over Drumcree. They truly reflect the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, who have twice voted for a peaceful and stable society.

Mr. Peter Robinson: May I bring the Minister back to the question on the Order Paper? What is the Government's thinking about appointments to the civic forum? Will they be made by the United Kingdom Government, the assembly in Northern Ireland, the First Minister and his deputy or someone else?

Mr. Murphy: The agreement makes it clear that it is a matter for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to lay down guidelines for appointments to the civic forum. They will be put to the assembly for its consideration and approval. However, during the talks, people were very much in favour of involving the organisations to which I referred in my previous answer—the Churches, the voluntary sector, women's groups, business and trade unions. I am sure that they will play a very important role in the life of Northern Ireland and a consultative role for the assembly in the years ahead.

Peace Process

Mr. Dennis Canavan: If she will make a statement about the development of the peace process. [49021]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): In considering an update on the development of the peace process, I am sure that the House will want to join me in offering support and condolences to the family of Richard, Mark and Jason Quinn.
Sadly, the violence continued at Drumcree last night and the police were caught up in that when blast bombs and missiles were thrown. I pay respect to the RUC for what they have done in the past week in very difficult circumstances. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are beginning to work to see what can be done to ensure that everything is in place for the assembly in September. Civil servants and others are working to make different options ready for the assembly in two months.

Mr. Canavan: I join my right hon. Friend in conveying the sympathies of the whole House to the family of Jason, Mark and Richard Quinn, who were so brutally murdered at the weekend. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any child's right to life is far more precious than any adult's right to march? Will she therefore appeal to all members of the Orange Order to listen carefully to the words of the

Rev. William Bingham, the Orange Order chaplain for Armagh, who said that a walk down the Garvaghy road would be a very hollow victory because it would be in the shadow of the coffins of three little boys?

Marjorie Mowlam: No one across the whole of Northern Ireland does not agree with that sentiment in respect of the Quinn family and the difficulties that they face as a result of what has happened. However, we must look to the future. Whether it is this year, next year or the year after, unless we deal with the competing rights and the underlying sectarianism, we may face an equally difficult situation again. Whether it is the right to march, to live free from fear and intimidation or the very basic right to life, we can move forward only if people talk. It is only by finding a way together that we shall find a way through the current difficult situation.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As has been said, we in the Ulster Unionist party are absolutely aghast at the terrible tragedy that occurred in Ballymoney and the deaths of the three Quinn children. We are also ashamed of the blatant sectarianism that we have witnessed in the past week in Northern Ireland. The greater number of people support the Stormont agreement, as it is properly called. However, I am astounded that, although this question refers to the peace process, the Secretary of State has failed totally to mention the main threat to peace in Northern Ireland. This has been lost sight of in light of the tragedies of the past week. A 1,400 lb bomb was intercepted on its way to Armagh city centre at the weekend, a 600 lb bomb was placed outside Newry courthouse at the weekend and the centre of the village of Newtown Hamilton has been smashed since the last Northern Ireland Question Time. The Government refuse to mention those republican terrorist attacks on Northern Ireland. Let us concentrate on the real threat to peace in Northern Ireland.

Marjorie Mowlam: Violence from whatever source is roundly condemned in the House. I fully acknowledge that many in the Orange Order at Drumcree do not want to see violence, but they are providing a front for others who are keen not just to cause violence but to destroy the Good Friday agreement. They are causing the problems. Whether it is at Drumcree or in the bombing and destruction of cities, people on the fringes and in fringe groups are indulging in that behaviour. We all condemn it, but, as my hon. Friends said earlier, we must see what we can do to build an alternative route for people to find a way forward.

Mr. Clive Soley: Would it not help the peace process if all political and religious leaders showed the sort of leadership that some have shown in the past few days? That would take the process forward and be a leap away from the sectarianism of the past. May we express the hope that, in future, three young children will not have to die in order that adults may learn the virtues of mutual respect and tolerance?

Marjorie Mowlam: I support the comments made by my hon. Friend. I should like to add that I believe that many leaders, across the spectrum of political parties in Northern Ireland, have shown leadership. They have shown a degree of determination and courage in a very, very difficult situation. I acknowledge that, and thank them for it.
Recalling the Good Friday agreement and the referendum, let us remember that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is there to find an alternative way; I believe that life after Drumcree will be searching for that other way forward.

Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats share, with the whole House, the agony of the Quinn family following the very sad events of last Sunday. May we, however, urge the Secretary of State not to deflect from the path that she and the Government have taken in terms of the Belfast agreement? Despite its critics, that agreement is the way forward in terms of peace and hope for Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State make a statement today on the progress that has been made regarding strand 2 of the Belfast agreement and those conditions that need to be put in place by the end of October?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. All aspects of the agreement—he refers especially to strand 2—are being worked on. Strand 2 refers to the North-South Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies. The North-South Ministerial Council will be in place in the autumn; the implementation bodies by 31 October. The preparatory work for that is being done now. As I said, First Minister Trimble and Deputy First Minister Mallon will lead that work, in consultation with others, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that all aspects of the agreement are moving in parallel.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: On behalf of my party, I join the Secretary of State, and indeed the entire community of Northern Ireland, in expressing condolences to the Quinn family. It was an horrific, terrifying experience for them and for the entire community. Although there have been very many other instances of such sectarian terrorism, fortunately many did not result in tragic death. Does the Secretary of State agree that many civic and Church leaders, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister designate have set an example of the way in which the community in Northern Ireland can work together and can evolve toward a future?
Does the Secretary of State also agree that, in the circumstances that we have had in Northern Ireland—10 days of mayhem, disruption, intimidation, brutality—the answer is quite simple: that the intention to stage an illegal march down the Garvaghy road is the cause of this mayhem? Does she agree that a decision by the Orange Order not to carry out that illegal march would be not a defeat for it, but a massive contribution to the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, these islands?

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point about acknowledging the work that the First and Deputy First Minister have done. It has been an incredible progress. I should like to acknowledge publicly that it has taken them both a lot of guts to do it, and I pay public tribute to them.
My hon. Friend spoke of the mayhem that has been going on for 10 days. People in Northern Ireland were shocked and stunned to a degree that was not experienced here. People here were shocked, but across the water it was amazing. As I said in answer to the previous question,

there is still determination to ensure that the shadow North-South Ministerial Council is in place, and that the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and all the other bits of that agreement are still moving forward.
In relation to my hon. Friend's final point, what is important is that the Parades Commission's recommendations are followed. It has the law behind it. A parade went down the Lower Ormeau road in line with the Parades Commission recommendation, and the people on that road watched it go down in silence. There are lessons there to be learned by everyone.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in what has been a very bleak few weeks for the Province, when three innocent young children have been incinerated to death in what can only be described as a sectarian killing, an ethnic cleansing, there are two positive observations that the House can make? The first is that, yet again, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has held the line and ensured that the rule of law is upheld, at great personal cost to its members, and that, yet again, we owe the RUC a very great debt of gratitude. Secondly, the axis between First Minister Trimble and Deputy First Minister Mallon has held in the most difficult circumstances. That bodes extremely well for the future.

Marjorie Mowlam: I agree. I would add that a tribute is due not only to the RUC, but to the Army in support and to their families, many of whom faced intimidation and were driven out of their homes during this period.

Mr. MacKay: Will the Secretary of State look to the future, so that we may all learn the lessons of the past few weeks? Clearly, the civic forum will be important in Portadown, but can the right hon. Lady assure the House that the future of the Parades Commission will be examined? Everything must be open to further consideration, in light of what has happened.

Marjorie Mowlam: The civic forum is under discussion in our attempts to find an accommodation in Portadown and Drumcree.
The Parades Commission was set up by the previous Government and given legal authority by this Government. It is an independent body which makes decisions on almost impossible situations. We ought to acknowledge the public service rendered by the people who have served on it. It is not easy, and it is not a job which many people wanted. I thank them and their chair for what they have done.
When one is dealing with competing rights in Northern Ireland, there is no easy answer. What matters is that might is not right but the rule of law is right, and that is what the Parades Commission is upholding. I am sure that, at the end of the marching season, we will take stock, along with the commission, and see what lessons we can all learn for the future.

Economic Development

Mr. Desmond Browne: If she will make a statement on Government proposals to assist economic development in Northern Ireland. [49022]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): We will continue to assist Northern Ireland-based companies to grow through improved international competitiveness, thus expanding the local economy. In addition to the existing comprehensive range of support measures, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced an economic regeneration package aimed at promoting enterprise, encouraging investment and improving employment opportunities throughout Northern Ireland. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a further £1.4 billion package of measures, which will greatly assist the economic development of Northern Ireland

Mr. Browne: Can my hon. Friend give the House an estimate of the overall cost to the economy of Northern Ireland of the lawlessness at Drumcree and the related disturbance and violence across Northern Ireland over the past 10 days? Can he quantify the impact that that will have on the progress that has been made towards development and especially jobs in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ingram: It is too early to say what the cost of the present Drumcree situation is. In 1995, the cost of events at Drumcree was nearly £1 million, in 1996 more than £2 million, and in 1997 £680,000. The cost of the policing of the Harryville demonstration was £2 million. The real cost, however, is not in money, but in human lives and misery. We now have a different way forward. I referred earlier to the economic packages that we are putting in place to create a new economic future for Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement provides the best framework for taking forward the social and economic development of the Province.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Yesterday's announcement by Chancellor Brown of future public spending will be welcomed in Northern Ireland, especially as new projects start and jobs are created. Does the Minister agree that when that money is in place, those who are unemployed must take the opportunity to participate as opportunities arise through the new deal? If they do that and match the commitment of employers in Northern Ireland, the Government's efforts to help our economy and to help people to help themselves will succeed.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman could help me to do my job—trying to promote Northern Ireland's economy—by backing the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. Beggs: rose—

Mr. Ingram: The more unity—[Interruption.] The more unity there is in Northern Ireland, the more we can leave the violence of the past 30 years behind us. That is what the Government have sought to do for the last year, by introducing a number of economic packages. I have campaigned in America, Japan and Taiwan to bring jobs to Northern Ireland; I now seek support, at all levels, for our attempts to give Northern Ireland peace, economic prosperity and a better future.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend mentioned bringing jobs to Northern Ireland from America. Has he recently received a

communication from Mr. Hevesi, the New York city comptroller? As my hon. Friend will know, Mr. Hevesi is in charge of the New York city employees' pension fund, which I think now stands at about $60 billion. I am given to understand that he and his colleagues are interested in investment in Northern Ireland, especially following the Good Friday agreement.

Mr. Ingram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a letter to that effect. I met Mr. Hevesi when I was last in New York, and we began to discuss some of the possibilities for economic prosperity offered by the investment trust. It is clear that the people of New York feel good will in regard to the Good Friday agreement, and I hope that we can build on that in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Minister aware that the aforesaid gentleman—the comptroller of New York city—has been waving his promises, and his wallet, at Northern Ireland for many years without ever putting his money where his mouth is?

Mr. Ingram: It is just as well that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not trying to attract inward investment. While we have been trying to build a better economic framework in Northern Ireland, others have been trying to destroy the very base on which we are attempting to create economic prosperity.

Political Institutions (Women)

Fiona Mactaggart: If she will make a statement on the involvement of women in political institutions in Northern Ireland; and what plans she has to encourage greater involvement of women. [49023]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): The role of women in Northern Ireland is very important, and has been for many years. In terms of political representation, however, we still have a good deal of progress to make. There are only 14 women in the assembly, which has 108 members—although 50 women stood—and only 85 district councillors in Northern Ireland are female.
As my hon. Friend knows, it is ultimately up to the parties in Northern Ireland to put women forward, but I assure her that we have done everything possible to give both women and men in Northern Ireland a chance to make choices and secure opportunities that would not otherwise have been available. The establishment of equal rights, the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, the introduction of the minimum wage and changes in benefit will give women more choices.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that women such as Chrissie Quinn have often borne the brunt of the failure of political parties in Northern Ireland to reach a settlement? Does she agree that it is the women who have been able to demonstrate practical and, often, non-sectarian organisational solutions to community


problems? What steps will she take to ensure that the proposed Northern Ireland civic forum involves more female participants than the assembly unfortunately does?

Marjorie Mowlam: One ability that women have, which is a great help in negotiations, is the ability to listen. [Interruption]

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a very good instruction to the House. May I have a little order? I can hear conversations taking place. I can hear everything that is being said in the back row of the Opposition Benches.

Marjorie Mowlam: I share my hon. Friend's feelings about Chrissie Quinn and the pain and suffering that she is going through, as many other women have done. Women have played an important role in Northern Ireland, particularly in the community sector. I hope that the civic forum will provide another option for them. We shall put forward a number of mechanisms to the politicians of Northern Ireland for the future. I hope that women's voices are heard. Some 75 per cent. of women across Northern Ireland supported the Good Friday agreement in the referendum.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Are you not sitting in that Chair because of your ability, Madam Speaker, and is the right hon. Lady not sitting on the Front Bench because of her ability and charm? It has everything to do with equal opportunities and nothing to do with politically correct claptrap.

Marjorie Mowlam: I do not think that it is a question of charm for either of us. Like all the women in this House, women who hold positions in Northern Ireland have come through a system of political parties. It is important that women and men have opportunities and choices in their lives. That is why I mentioned the minimum wage and the European convention on human rights. Those measures will give women and men who do not have employment a chance to gain the respect and confidence to do what they want with their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Phil Woolas: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had the pleasure, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, to visit Hawley infants and nursery school in Camden, which, along with schools throughout the country, will benefit from the reforms and spending announced yesterday. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have meetings with ministerial colleagues later in the day.

Mr. Woolas: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £19 billion extra for education and the £21 billion

extra for health are much more than the previous Government were prepared to spend and significantly more than the infinitely elastic 1p on income tax from the Liberal Democrats? Is he aware that my constituents want the extra money to be translated into real hospital beds and real classrooms as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. That is precisely what will happen. The spending increases announced yesterday—the £19 billion for education and the £21 billion for health—will ensure that we have the public services that we need. By tying the money to reform and modernisation, we shall ensure that it is spent well and wisely and goes to the front line of services. The shadow Chancellor decided to oppose our plans. The Conservatives will go into the next general election saying that, whereas we are providing more for schools and hospitals, they would provide less. That is their choice and they will live with it.

Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister recognise that having vowed to cut welfare bills, he has comprehensively failed to do so? Will he confirm that the social security budget will rise by more than £27 billion over the next three years? Will he explain why he did not talk about that in answer to the previous question and why the Chancellor did not even mention it yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I am very happy to talk about that. The £27 billion that the right hon. Gentleman refers to will be spent on the whole social security budget. The vast bulk of it will be spent on pensions, child benefit and disabilities. Through the new deal, we are cutting spending on social and economic failure, as we promised. Perhaps he will tell us which of those items—pensions, child benefit or disabilities—he would like to cut.

Mr. Hague: It is the Prime Minister who said:
New Labour is about cutting welfare bills".
It is no good two years later asking other people how to do it. When he said that, people thought that he knew how to do it. The rate of growth of welfare spending will increase—£5 billion next year, £8 billion the year after and £14 billion the year after that. Those are the Chancellor's figures. Will the Prime Minister now admit that he has failed and that far and away the biggest increase in yesterday's announcement—bigger than education, bigger than health—was in welfare and social security spending?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that we quite had an answer to that point on pensions, did we?
I should point out that the social security budget is rising less under this Government than it did under the right hon. Gentleman's. More than that, we promised that we would cut the bills of economic and social welfare. That is what the new deal does. That is why young people are getting jobs that they did not get under the Tories. That is the why the long-term unemployed are off benefit and into work, which did not happen under the Tories. That is why, for the first time in years, the number of lone parents on income support has fallen below 1 million, and is due to fall by another 40,000 next year. All those things reduce the bills of failure. That is our policy—opposed by


the right hon. Gentleman. He opposes not merely raising pensions, child benefit and disability payments, but measures that cut the bills of economic and social failure.

Mr. Hague: If the Prime Minister is doing so well at cutting those bills, why are they going up faster than any other Government bills? Will he confirm that the £27 billion increase in the social security budget does not even include the working families tax credit—contrary to the impression that he has been giving in radio interviews this morning—and that, when that and all other social security expenditure under different headings are added together, the total rise in welfare spending in the next three years will be more than £37 billion, which is almost as much as the increases in education and health spending put together? Is he proud of producing that?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is on a listening tour, so let him listen. As I have just told him, the vast bulk of the rise in social security spending is on pensions, child benefit and disability payments. Which of those does he oppose? [Interruption.] Let us have some silence; let us ask which. We do not have an answer. He is just like his shadow Chancellor, who is touring television studios saying that he is against all the spending that we announced yesterday, but every time that he is asked about a specific, such as education or health, he says that he is in favour of it. The Leader of the Opposition does not know where he stands on spending or social security. He is all right dancing around the Dispatch Box with sixth form debating society phrases about lobbyists, but when it comes to the hard business of politics and government, he does not have a clue.

Mr. Hague: We always know that, when the Prime Minister gets on to the sixth form debating society, he does not know how to answer the question. Why can we not have a specific answer from the man who is meant to give specific answers, who said:
New Labour is about cutting welfare bills",
and now presides over an enormous increase in welfare bills? If he is so proud of those spending figures, why is the Chancellor trying to hide so many of them? Why do all the figures for the working families tax credit appear in the Chancellor's document under "accounting adjustments"? Why do we have a £14 billion increase in "accounting adjustments"—the fourth largest increase of any Government programme? No doubt the Paymaster General would have put it down as "directors' fees".
This year's failure on welfare is being paid for by last year's tax increases—by home owners, pension fund holders, car owners and businesses. This is from the Government who said that there would be no tax increases at all. Were not people deceived at the election, just like those who thought that the Prime Minister was serious about welfare reform?

The Prime Minister: Let me try to explain it to the right hon. Gentleman again. At the election, we said that we would cut the bills of social and economic failure. That is what the new deal does. The right hon. Gentleman opposes the new deal. The rest of the increases in welfare spending are on pensions, child benefit and disabilities—all spending of which he now says he is in favour. Welfare spending under this Government is rising less in real terms than it did under his Government, precisely because

we are cutting the bills of failure, as we promised. The truth is that he does not know where he stands on that, as he does not know where he stands on every other serious spending issue.

Mr. Hague: The truth is that the Prime Minister does not know the figures. According to the figures released by the Library this morning, the rise in welfare spending for the two years' spending that the Government inherited from us is 0 per cent., whereas the average rise for the three years that they have just planned for will be 3.5 per cent. a year in real terms. How can the Government say that their policies succeed in reducing welfare bills? That is what the Prime Minister promised to do before the election, and that is what he is failing to do. He said that it was all about tough choices, and he has failed to make those choices. He said it was about cutting the bills, and the bills are going up. He talked about open government, and he has finished up with £14 billion of "accounting adjustments". When will he do as he promised and come forward with welfare reform that actually reduces the welfare bill?

The Prime Minister: The welfare reform that reduces the welfare bills is tackling social and economic failure. That is why we are committed to the new deal, which is opposed by the right hon. Gentleman's party. That is why we are committed to the working families tax credit, which is opposed by his party. That is why we are investing money in education, which is opposed by his party. That is why we are investing money in inner cities, which is also opposed by his party. We are investing the money for the long-term health of the country, cutting the deficit that we inherited from his party, and cutting the welfare bills for social and economic failure. Our record on fiscal prudence, spending, investment and growth is better than anything that his lot ever achieved.

Mr. Tom Levitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on the radio this morning, the shadow Chancellor talked about a 20 per cent. increase in spending, but then went on to say that, for every £4 spent now, £5 would be spent in future? By my reckoning, that is not a 20 per cent. increase. Does that not tell him a lot about the quality of the Opposition—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, and all Members, must ask the Prime Minister questions about things for which he has a responsibility—nothing to do with the Opposition. I have told the House on more than one occasion that questions should be framed about responsibilities that the Prime Minister carries. Can the hon. Gentleman try better?

Mr. Levitt: Does what the shadow Chancellor said not show the need for radical investment in education for numeracy, as we have proposed?

The Prime Minister: We do have an excellent adult numeracy programme. When the shadow Chancellor was on the radio this morning, he was also asked, "Mr. Maude, can you really have it both ways—asking for increased spending but opposing overall increased spending?" and he said, "Oh, of course we can." The truth of the matter is that the Opposition really do not know where they stand—but they cannot have it both ways. Yesterday,


they decided that they opposed the spending that we have put forward, so they will go into the next election opposing all the good things that we are doing for schools and hospitals.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am delighted that, yesterday, the Government finally opened the war chest that they have been telling us for the past year did not exist. I am even more delighted that they have decided to do as we have been telling them for the past year, and use the money for schools and hospitals. However, will the Prime Minister now confirm that that three-year spending on health and education will be both inflation proofed and recession proofed?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate that we are never knowingly underspent by the Liberal Democrats. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, the forecasts for growth and the economic forecasts, he will see that they are extremely careful and cautious, and have been agreed—as the Conservatives' never were—by the National Audit Office. As for inflation, the right hon. Gentleman knows about yesterday's figures. The real-terms increases we are putting into health and education over the next few years will make a significant difference to schools and hospitals. The important thing is that that is done after two years in which we tightened our belt; we had to do so to make sure that any extra investment in public services was sustainable over the long term.

Mr. Ashdown: I am sorry that the Prime Minister chose not to answer the question, because it is really a very simple one. We want to know what happens if the unexpected happens. We want to know the strength of the Prime Minister's will to deliver. The question is very simple. If inflation is greater than forecast, will the Chancellor find the extra money? If growth is less than forecast, will the Chancellor find the extra taxes?

The Prime Minister: We put forward our proposals based on the evidence we have and on our predictions, which we believe to be correct. They are cautious, and are not anything other than entirely in line with what is expected. Compared with other independent forecasts, they are positively cautious. However, it is precisely for that reason that we have built in current account surpluses for every one of the three years—some £30 billion-worth. All those things are important in making sure that we are able to meet our pledges, irrespective of the economic circumstances. We believe that those economic circumstances will be as we have set out.

Kate Hoey: Does the Prime Minister agree that, in spite of the terrible events in Northern Ireland in the past few days, the words of Father Forde, the local priest, at the service for the three young boys yesterday—that the shared sorrow was a "beacon of hope" for the future—reflect the decent voice of decent people in Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that we should send our congratulations to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who have shown that they can be even-handed, and that those people who call for their disbandment are just plain wrong?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend, and I should like to pay tribute to her for the

work that she has done over a long period in Northern Ireland. It seems strange to say so in light of the appalling and evil tragedy of the murder of those three children, but the fact is that we will overcome those latest difficulties. The people have voted for peace in Northern Ireland in the referendum and in the Assembly elections. The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland want the peace process to continue. They do not share the views of the extremists, and they have shown their will over the past few days that those extremists ought not to be able to set the agenda. In showing that they are prepared to stand up for the rule of law in respect of intimidation from any quarter, the RUC did a great service to themselves and to the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Sir Paul Beresford: The Prime Minister will probably agree that, over the past 20 years, there have been great improvements in London and the south-east. In spite of that, there are still areas of great need. For example, 19 of the 22 most needy boroughs in the country are in London. At the moment, the education authorities in London and the south-east are looking at their indicative standard spending assessments for next year. Surrey will lose £8 million, and London will lose £227 million. Can the Prime Minister explain to me and to the children of London and the south-east why that is, and if the same unfair form of allocation will continue for the funds announced yesterday?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is, in effect, asking for extra investment in education—that is exactly what we are doing, opposed by his party. The investment will be made on a fair basis. He talks about need having grown over the past 20 years, and it has. That is why we are creating the new deal, the action on social exclusion and the investment into the inner cities which need it most. When we get that extra money into education, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support this side of the House against his own leadership.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: What further plans does my right hon. Friend have to put a strong emphasis on the attack on social exclusion through his unit at No. 10 and to promote cross-departmental co-operation? In the light of the extra £4.4 billion for regeneration that was announced yesterday in the comprehensive spending review, will he urge members of the unit to visit seaside towns, such as Blackpool, which have particular problems and where a co-ordinated approach to multiple deprivation is necessary?

The Prime Minister: Of course the social exclusion unit has produced two excellent reports—one on truancy, the other on rough sleepers—which have been very well received over the past few months. My hon. Friend is right to say that the additional money—the £3.6 billion of capital receipts that will help in respect of housing and the £800 million that is part of the new deal money for communities—will tackle the problems of social exclusion and deprivation. We believe that, if that investment goes into our economy, we can give opportunities to people who do not currently have them, so that they can come off benefit, get into work and make


a contribution to society. That is better for them and for the economy, and it will create the fairer, more decent society that Labour Members want.

Mr. Peter Luff: Yesterday, when the Prime Minister did his U-turn on social security spending—instead of cutting it, he increased it by £27 billion—was he not returning to the bad old Labour ways of spend, spend, spend the people's money? When the Chancellor's gamble goes wrong, as it surely will, will that not mean, once again, tax, tax, tax the people?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman did not listen to a word of what I was saying—[Interruption.] I answered the question very clearly indeed. First, if the hon. Gentleman is accusing us of raising social security spending too much, that is rather curious, as we are increasing it far less than the Conservative Government did. Secondly, the vast bulk of the £27 billion, as I have said, is going on pensions, child benefit and disability benefits. [Interruption.] Which of those does the hon. Gentleman oppose? He can shout it out now, but he does not know. The Conservatives are the great don't knows. After the most important spending proposals that this country has seen for decades, they are paralysed, unable to decide whether to pander to their right wing or to get behind us and support the policies that the country wants.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am sure that, given his personal involvement in trying to find a resolution, the Prime Minister is acutely aware of the tragedy that has taken place in Northern Ireland over the past 10 days. Does he agree that the right of a limited number of people to march on a limited stretch of road must be subjugated to the odds of death, terrorism, sectarianism, intimidation, road blocking and the destruction of business, which is what we are now seeing? Will he continue his efforts—which are greatly appreciated by the entire community in Northern Ireland—in the proximity arrangements between the contending parties? Pray God, those efforts will come to fruition, so that we in Northern Ireland can return to some sort of normality.

The Prime Minister: Of course there is never any excuse for violence and intimidation from any quarter. The difficulty with marches is that there are competing rights. People want to march in traditional ways, but other people who live in areas where they feel that the march is provocative do not want it to happen. My judgment—I think that it is the judgment of the majority of people in Northern Ireland—is that, with a bit of good will and dialogue, we could find a way around the problem, so that people can enjoy their right to march peacefully and unprovocatively and the dignity of local residents can be respected.
I regard what is happening as one of a series of hurdles that we need to get over to secure peace in Northern Ireland. We got over the referendum and the assembly elections and we must now get through the marching season to create the climate and atmosphere in which people can see that their differences can be easily resolved with good will and dialogue. We shall do all that we can, and I thank the hon. Gentleman and the leadership of his

party for the incredibly responsible way in which they have behaved over the past few days. I congratulate the First Minister, the leader of the Ulster Unionists, and his deputy, who, as two people, have shown exactly what the future of Northern Ireland could be if people wanted it.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Why does the Prime Minister continue to deny that he made the pledge that he would cap the taxpayer's burden, which is social security spending? Did he not make that pledge before the general election because he knew that, if he did not cut spending, the economy and all the plans that were outlined yesterday would be jeopardised? Where will the money come from?

The Prime Minister: Let me read our commitment to the hon. Gentleman. We said:
we will increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure.
That is what the new deal is about. I did not promise to cut pensions, disability living allowance or child benefit, which are also part of the welfare and social security budget. If the hon. Gentleman is in listening mode, I will explain. Part of the budget is spending on pensions, child benefit and people with disabilities: good, we like that. The other part is spending on unemployment and people on benefit when they should be at work: bad, we want to decrease that. This part we protect, and that part we use the new deal to diminish—got it?

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that many single people living alone feel that they get a raw deal from the way in which water charges are currently made. The Government's review on the future of water charges is making rapid progress, and I hope that it will decide that compulsory water meters are not the solution for most of the country. Does he agree that we should ensure that single people living alone get a fairer deal, perhaps by giving them a discount similar to those applied to council tax?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we are considering the responses to the consultation. When it is right to do so, we will state our decisions. I have no doubt that we will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind when we take the decisions.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The Prime Minister said that the spending review would enable more to go to front-line services. What about front-line soldiers? The Chancellor's statement has taken a major bite out the defence budget, worth nearly £1 billion. How much of that mouthful of money will be added back to the defence budget to enable the Secretary of State for Defence to meet his obligation and pledge to improve service people's pay and conditions of service, to fill the gap of 5,000 soldiers in the Army, to attract in the 3,300 more soldiers whom he has said that he intends to hire, and to retain those who are already serving in the armed forces?

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long history of interest in these matters, but I am not taking any lessons from Conservatives on defence spending, because they cut it by 30 per cent. and cut the Territorial Army by 30 per cent. It is interesting that, the moment a Conservative Member of Parliament gets off message, he asks for more spending, not less.
The strategic defence review was an extraordinary exercise, undertaken with and supported by all the armed services. It does not in any way reduce our capability, but modernises it and makes it right for the 21st century. That is why it has been so widely welcomed.

Dr. Ian Gibson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recent report by the Royal College of Radiologists, which shows clearly that radiotherapy is a cost-effective treatment for the management and cure of cancers. He will also be aware that the treatment cannot be equally accessed throughout the country, which leads to waiting time and waiting list increases. Will he campaign with me for the purchase of equipment, such as linear accelerators and for trained staff to rectify that anomaly?

The Prime Minister: The report sets out the model for high-quality cancer services. We have already made additional resources available for such services, but the £21 billion additional spending for the national health service that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced yesterday will improve services. It is important that that money goes to front-line services, cancer services included, and the health service White Paper guarantees that everyone with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their general practitioner deciding that they need to be seen urgently and requesting

an appointment. That system will be in place in April 1999 for breast cancer and by April 2000 for all other cancers. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and we have committed those additional funds to get the right type of equipment and processes into the national health service. As the money feeds through, I hope that people will see substantial improvements in the quality of their services.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Manufacturing is already in recession. Should the rest of the economy slow down, how will yesterday's spending commitments be paid for?

The Prime Minister: As I explained a moment or two ago, our forecasts are very cautious and we will be running current account surpluses, as opposed to the deficits that were run under the Conservative Government. It is true that manufacturing output has been more or less static in the past year and has slightly declined in the past two quarters, but no one in manufacturing should be in any doubt about what the consequences of Conservative economic policy would be. We saw those consequences at the end of the late 1980s and we will remind the country of what they were: 15 per cent. interest rates; manufacturing output down 7 per cent.; and the deepest recession in the country's history. That was Conservative economic policy and we are not going back to it.

Education Expenditure

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the impact of the comprehensive spending review on education and employment.
Yesterday's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer heralds a new beginning for our schools, colleges and universities. This is a new contract for education—an investment on an unprecedented scale to deliver a step change in education standards nationwide. Every pound of new funding has been linked to demanding targets, including firm targets for mathematics and English, to drive up standards across the board. That settlement demonstrates the Government's commitment to fulfilling our pledges—investing in the future of our children and the employability and lifelong learning of our people. It allows us to modernise and renew our commitment to taking on the challenge of a new century.
In the years ahead, we intend to create the classroom of the future. Smaller classes and the expansion of modern technology to support learning will be matched by better motivated and more highly skilled teachers. The best will be rewarded, building on the new grade of advanced skill teacher, and we shall seek to recruit, retain and reward our teachers to match the task ahead.
The settlement will allow us to employ more classroom assistants to back up our teachers. We intend to improve dramatically the adult:pupil ratio in primary classrooms, to ensure that children have the attention that they need to succeed.
Since May last year, we have announced an extra £2.5 billion for education and £3.5 billion for the new deal programme for unemployed men and women. We are building on the progress made this year. From September, there will be lower class sizes for 100,000 pupils in infant classes throughout the country, a new literacy framework and an early years place for every four-year-old whose parents wish it.
We have made a good beginning, but I can inform the House that we shall do even better in the next three years. A flying start in life is crucial to success. That is why I am announcing a new initiative to link support for families and nursery education in providing a sure start for all our children. "Sure Start" will be a cross-Department initiative. Colleagues in the Department of Health and others will work with the Department for Education and Employment to provide comprehensive support for pre-school children who face the greatest disadvantage. It will include child care and play, primary health care, early education and family support. We are spending £540 million on "Sure Start" over three years, in addition to spending on our child care initiative.
Nursery education is the foundation of later educational success. I am pleased to announce that there will be an extra 190,000 nursery places for three-year-olds in England by 2002. That will double to two thirds the number of three-year-olds who have access to a free nursery place, and it is the first step towards ensuring universal provision for all three-year-olds whose parents want it.
We promised the voters that by 2002, no five, six or seven-year-old would be in classes of more than 30. That essential pledge is a key component in raising standards, and I am keen to make even faster progress. I am pleased to tell the House that the money announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday will enable us to achieve that pledge earlier. No five, six or seven-year-old will be in a class of more than 30 by September 2001. I can go still further. The resources available will enable local education authorities that wish to do so to fulfil that aim by September 2000—18 months earlier than we promised the electorate.
An extra £160 million will be available to adapt or build 2,000 extra classrooms, ensuring that we can underpin parental preference as well as deliver smaller class sizes. An extra 6,000 teachers will be employed to ensure that youngsters learn the basics. In total, we shall spend an additional £620 million between now and 2002, to deliver our pledge.
Not only our schools will gain; our universities and colleges will be winners. We have taken tough but fair decisions on funding for further and higher education. We did so to end the years of neglect that brought a 30 per cent. drop in funding for each higher education student over the Last seven Conservative Budgets. We shall carry through our promise to spend the money raised by our new student support arrangements on improving access to, and investment in, further and higher education. In 1999–2000 alone, there will be an extra £280 million for our universities, which is a 5.7 per cent. cash increase for higher education and includes £50 million for research. That will be in addition to the substantial sums announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for research and science expenditure.
I am particularly pleased to announce an additional £255 million for our further education and sixth-form colleges, which is a cash increase for next year alone of 8.2 per cent. That will enable us to improve skill levels, and to increase rates for staying on at age 16. The real-terms increase in spending on education across the United Kingdom over the next three years will be almost 16 per cent.—an average of more than 5 per cent. a year. In cash terms, that is an increase of 25 per cent.
Our school system was failed by the Conservative party. During the 18 years that it was in power, it managed an average real-terms increase of only 1.4 per cent. a year. In the three years to 1997, it reduced the amount that it allocated in real terms to education year on year. Inevitably, class sizes rose year on year. Today marks the end of that sorry decline.
By contrast, we shall have allocated almost £10 billion by 2001. We shall double spending on capital investment over the Parliament: money for repair and modernisation and for classrooms fit to learn in. The sorry—the Tory Govemment—[Laughter.] The sorry Tory Government, in their final death throes, cut spending by £110 per pupil. Our spending proposals mean an increase of £300 per pupil next year over and above what the Conservatives would have spent had they won the Last general election. In the months and years ahead, the change will be clear for all to see in the fabric of our schools, in the professionalism and morale of our teachers and in the results achieved by our pupils.
This is an historic day for education. It is the largest and best settlement in any three-year period since the war. It will give every pupil and every teacher, every parent


and every governor, the confidence that they need to deliver the high standards essential for all our needs and for a new millennium. We said that we would make education our top priority and that we would spend more of our national income than our predecessors on education. Today, we are fulfilling our promises. Tomorrow, we shall start to deliver the education service that Britain deserves.

Mr. David Willetts: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his boldness and ingenuity in constructing very large figures for future spending, by counting absolutely everything together on top of the cash figures for this year—future inflation, three years' worth of raids on the contingency reserve, statistical changes all thrown together in one great hotch-potch. Will he confirm that using exactly his methodology, starting from one year's cash figures and counting everything else as an increase, the Conservative Government presided over increases in education spending that cumulatively totalled £250 billion since 1979? They totalled £26 billion since 1992.
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that, despite his pledge to increase the proportion of our national output that goes on education, it will take him four years to get back to the position that he inherited from us? He is running hard to stand still. In our last year of office, we devoted 4.9 per cent. of gross domestic product to education, although I notice that he has cut his estimate of that to 4.7 per cent. We understand that he wants to fiddle his own figures, but will he kindly stop fiddling ours?
The Secretary of State makes much play of getting to 5 per cent. of GDP in his fifth year of office, but the average over the lifetime of this Parliament will be 4.8 per cent. of GDP spent on education. The average during the five years of the previous Parliament was 5.1 per cent. We are talking not about unprecedented investment but about unprecedented hype.
The Secretary of State offered us a familiar List of the areas on which the money will be spent. He repeated yet again his pledge on class sizes. Was not it supposed to be an early pledge? Now we are talking about 2001. What does "early" mean in the lexicon of new Labour—2002? Does he accept that today's statement is the final admission that he cannot finance his class size pledge by the abolition of the assisted places scheme? His problem is that Large classes are often in the popular schools that get good Office for Standards in Education reports and to which parents want to send their children. Many such schools simply do not have the physical space to embark on large-scale building programmes. Will not his rigid commitment to his policy mean a reduction in parental choice? Why has he failed yet again to promise that he will not achieve his class size target at the expense of parental choice?
The Secretary of State talked about expanding provision in the early years, but is he aware that many independent and voluntary nurseries for four-year-olds up and down the country are closing as a result of his so-called expansion of education for four-year-olds, which meant public sector expansion at the expense of everyone else? Is not that just what he intends to do for very young children as well? Can he assure the 80,000 providers—

Mr. John Hayes: rose—

Mr. Willetts: I am asking the Secretary of State for an assurance on behalf of the 80,000 providers of 800,000 places for children aged up to four that they will not lose out to state provision in the same way as charitable and private providers of education for four-year-olds are already doing.
The Secretary of State was ingenious in his spinning before the statement today. We had in yesterday's edition of The Guardian the headline that I presume was meant for the teachers, "Extra funds for teachers and nurses". Then there was the headline in The Daily Telegraph, "Public sector workers face pay squeeze". Which headline was true? What are his intentions with regard to teachers' pay? He has been specific today about capital, but we have heard nothing but vague statements about pay. It is no good having shiny new classrooms if one cannot retain and recruit good teachers to teach in them. It is no good pandering to the Chancellor's obsession with physical construction and capital if one does so at the expense of the recruitment of good teachers.
How much of the extra money will reach the schools? We know from last year when the Secretary of State boasted of an extra increase in education expenditure of £800 million that only £500 million got through to the schools. The Secretary of State is loading more and more tasks on local education authorities and at the same time urging them to pass more money on to schools. How does he intend to ensure that that happens?
We have heard about more money for higher education. The Secretary of State spoke about £280 million going to universities in 1999–2000, but in that very same year students will lose grant worth £600 million and will face tuition fees of £250 million. The sum of £850 million taken from students is not matched by £280 million going into higher education.
We have the pledge of 500,000 more places in higher education and further education. There is no indication of where the places will be or how many will be in higher education. Will the Secretary of State confirm that many of the new places will be part time and that the full-time equivalents will be less than half of the 500,000 that he is talking about?
Everyone involved in education will of course welcome the increase in expenditure, as I do, but they will not welcome the Secretary of State's desire to interfere in every nook and cranny of what goes on in the schools, colleges and universities of our country. That is no way to raise education standards.

Mr. Blunkett: If I could glean the question, I would be well on the way to giving the answer. The truth is that the House will have realised that someone described as "two brains" must have lost one brain on the way here this afternoon—so much so that someone on the hon. Gentleman's own side tried to intervene on him even though he was asking a question.
I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is in favour of more spending on education or against it. The shadow Chancellor is against it; the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment appears to want more spending. He wants to accumulate the measly spending over 18 years and pretend that it matches ours over three


years—1.4 per cent. real-terms growth over 18 years, which is matched by 16 per cent. real-terms growth in just three years. Everyone outside the House will be able to make a judgment of his own.
I did glean one question. It was about the GDP proportion, which works like this: under cash accounting, it is 4.7 per cent. rising to 5.1 per cent.; under resource accounting, which the Treasury now uses, it is 4.6 per cent. rising to 5 per cent. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman to work out the difference. Of course, the increase in GDP by 1992 was achieved on the back of one of the worst slumps that this country has had since the second world war. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that the ratio of GDP goes up as, regrettably, growth slows and goes down.
Let me answer some of the questions that I gleaned in respect of what is described as an early pledge. An early pledge is 2000 rather than 2002. An early pledge for five, six and seven-year-olds is a pledge that we made but which the Conservative party never intended to make and would never have made, even as class sizes rose year on year. Of course there will be choice: I made it clear in my statement that parental preference will be taken into account, and that is why we are investing additional cash.
The most breathtaking point posed was the issue of teachers' pay. Who was it who got into a terrible mess over pensions, which accelerated the drain away from the teaching profession? Who was it who drove teachers by the thousand out of a profession of which they should be proud? Let me make it clear again this afternoon: we wish to recruit, we wish to retain, we wish to reward and we wish to motivate. We shall do so by working out with the profession a way in which we can ensure that performance is applauded, that cash is available for those who need it, that we can retain good teachers in the profession and that we can have the sort of standards that were never possible under the Conservative party.

Ms Margaret Hodge: May I warmly welcome today's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and congratulate him on having secured such a high proportion of the additional resources for expenditure? Will he tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that the money for schools actually goes through to the institutions themselves?

Mr. Blunkett: That is a crucial question, in view of the experience over the past year and the indications that there are authorities that are saying that they are not prepared to go along with the priorities laid down by the Government. One of the ways in which I should like to achieve what my hon. Friend asks is by asking the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and representatives of the Liberal Democrats to join me in writing to every leader of every council and every chair of education saying that, now that the resources have been found and the money has been allocated, they will back me in ensuring that their councillors as well as mine carry that money into every school and every classroom in the country.

Mr. Don Foster: Unlike the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who seems completely blind to a good deal for education, may I genuinely congratulate the

Secretary of State and applaud his statement today? Does he find it somewhat odd that the hon. Member for Havant cannot find a single thing in the statement to welcome? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to welcome the significant improvement in early years education, given the mess that the Conservatives made with nursery vouchers, but he could at least have welcomed "Sure Start", as I do.
In view of the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Gentleman, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if we are to have the high-quality education that both he and I want, we shall have to have a sufficient number of high-quality teachers, so we shall have to improve the pay and conditions package for the vast majority of teachers and not only for the few super teachers? Does he also accept that there is a need to further his attempt to reduce bureaucracy for teachers, by increasing the number of ancillary assistants in schools? Can he confirm that that is included in the package?

Mr. Blunkett: On the last point, I am happy to confirm that the programme that we are laying out will include teachers' assistants, ancillary and non-teaching staff in the team that makes up the delivery of the education service. Our bureaucracy working party, which has now been welcomed by all the teachers' unions and is already working, will make a difference.
Of course it is necessary to pay teachers well. We have to balance the inflationary pressures that are evident in today's statistics relating to the private sector with the need to reward teachers well and keep them in the classroom. The development of our programme, "Something for Something", will be a crucial part of solving that equation.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Today is certainly an historic occasion. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first time in the 12 years that I have been in the House that I have been able to congratulate the Government on increasing spending on education? Is he further aware that over a year ago I said in the House that I did not believe that the amount of money that would be saved from the assisted places scheme would be enough to pay for reducing class sizes and that more money would have to be found? I am delighted that the Secretary of State has taken my advice on that issue.
I apologise for going over this matter again, but my right hon. Friend is aware that I have been deeply involved with the National Union of Teachers for many years and that miserly awards were granted by the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that, out of the money that is being made available for education, schoolteachers will get the increases in their salaries that they richly deserve and have not received for nearly 20 years?

Mr. Blunkett: I am genuinely pleased to bask in the congratulations of my hon. Friend, particularly because they come so rarely to me, and I am grateful. I confirm that there have been unfortunately low settlements, but there has also been a disparity year on year and a lack of continuity and consistency. If, with a three-year settlement, we can gradually build up over the next three years to achieving our goals, not only in rewarding


teachers but in investing to enable them to do their job better, we shall receive the applause of parents and teachers at the end of that period.

Mr. David Curry: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the private finance initiative will still play a crucial role in providing new schools and that his package will enable that initiative to be accelerated? Will he further confirm that a new list is due to appear this month and—the Minister for School Standards is whispering to him, with my approval—does he recognise the importance of the North Yorkshire primary schools that are candidates for that list, given that it would be the first time that Church schools were included in the PFI?

Mr. Blunkett: I can confirm that my hon. Friend was whispering in my ear, but I cannot confirm what he was whispering. I can, however, confirm that there will be a minimum of £350 million a year of PFI credits and that within the next few weeks we shall consider the distribution of those resources.

Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will know that in Norfolk, where we were particularly pleased to hear the death knell called on the nursery voucher, people will welcome the advance in nursery provision for three-year-olds. How will that be phased and what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the difficult rural areas, which present different problems for nursery education, are treated equitably with areas where it might be physically easier to introduce the new programme?

Mr. Blunkett: It is important that we correctly implement that policy in rural areas. As my hon. Friend will know from his time as chair of education in Norfolk and in the House, we have introduced ways in which we are supporting and encouraging collaboration between the different sectors. The early years partnerships are already playing a significant role in engaging voluntary as well as private and statutory provision, to make it possible imaginatively to deliver the programme.
In rural areas, we need to use imagination, so that we can provide services on a peripatetic basis and encourage, as we are doing in urban areas, the integration of nursery education and child care. The "Sure Start" programme, which is very close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, will be developing, and we shall be able to illustrate over the weeks ahead how that will integrate imaginatively with health provision, including health centres, GP practices and post-natal provision, and break down the barriers between the different approaches to the family and the child in the crucial early years.

Mr. William Ross: Given the amount of substandard accommodation and accommodation in need of repair that is in use throughout the nation, and presuming that Northern Ireland will also receive a doubling of the sums to be spent on refurbishing, repairs and rebuilding, what is the Secretary of State's time scale for ensuring that all school accommodation attains a proper standard?

Mr. Blunkett: I can guarantee a doubling of expenditure by the end of the three-year spending review,

but I cannot guarantee that every school in every part of the United Kingdom will have reached the standard that the hon. Gentleman and I would like them to achieve. I hope that we shall get very close to attaining that standard. I hope that the combination of measures that we have announced, including the development of spending on the learning grid, will enable us to bring our schools to a standard of which every parent can be proud.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, as part of the programme, there is adequate co-ordination with other Departments? The programme at Wolverham school in my constituency engages adults in adult learning and enables them to participate in the new deal arrangements. That imaginative programme is particularly important for schools in poorer communities. We must ensure that there is maximum collaboration between all agencies, so that we continue to get the best value for money.

Mr. Blunkett: I could not agree more. I make it clear that the resources being allocated, including resources that we want to target on what is known as non-schedule 2 adult education, will be crucial to giving people new access to further and higher education. The agenda set out by Baroness Kennedy and Professor Fryer will be close to the hearts of all of those who want to overturn exclusion and ensure that there is an inclusion agenda for further and higher education and for lifelong learning.

Mr. Hayes: I thought that I should ask one of my own questions instead of trying to intervene upon my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts).
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has assessed the impact on the potential increase in teachers' pay of inflation and the cost of the standards fund? The LEAs in Labour-controlled Nottinghamshire and Conservative-controlled Lincolnshire are telling teachers, parents and governors that the increases in the past year about which the Secretary of State has spoken so grandly have not had an impact in the classroom because those issues have affected the amount of money reaching schools.

Mr. Blunkett: I make it absolutely clear that the contribution of 50 per cent. from central Government—which will ensure that the literacy programme and other essential initiatives that raise standards are carried through in the classroom—is a promise, not a threat. I believe that giving local authorities 50 per cent. more than they would have received in order to do what they should already be doing is a very good deal.
If Lincolnshire had passported the money to the education service, which could have then passported it to schools, we would not have the disgraceful picture of such low allocations. That shows what the Conservatives think about when they allocate money to education. Lincolnshire county council under the Tories has mirrored the miserly and measly allocations that central Government under the Tory party gave to the nation as a whole.

Mr. Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the churlish and mean-spirited diatribe from the Opposition Front Bench explains why hon. Members on the Tory Benches look as sick as parrots while everyone on the Labour Benches looks over the moon? May I congratulate the Secretary of State on


achieving 5 per cent. per annum real growth in education and employment spending? That allows the most challenging of our election pledges to be fulfilled—that is, increasing the proportion of gross domestic product spent on education over time. I now urge my right hon. Friend to give equal focus to dealing with the productivity gap that the Chancellor has identified as being crucial to the success of the Government's economic and financial strategy. Will my right hon. Friend give to that objective the same focus that he is giving to the schools agenda?

Mr. Blunkett: I cannot confirm the health of the parrots, but I did hear one fall off a perch, so nailing them to it is obviously the task. The issue that my right hon. Friend has raised is important. I believe that, with the active work of the Education and Employment Committee, we shall be able to make progress in that area.

Mr. Peter Viggers: May I draw on my experience as chairman of the governors of St. Vincent sixth-form college in my constituency to express regret that there was only a passing reference to sixth-form colleges in the Secretary of State's statement? Does the Secretary of State agree that sixth-form colleges have used their independence under the Further Education Funding Council extremely well, making considerable improvements in efficiency? Does he agree, however, that sixth-form colleges receive only 80 per cent. of the amount per student received by neighbouring sixth forms? What does he propose to do about that?

Mr. Blunkett: I intend to do a damn sight more than the previous Government did. I am genuinely mindful that there is a disparity, and that sixth-form colleges are delivering high-quality, high-standard education with lower allocations. The 8.2 per cent. cash increase for further education is crucial to helping us narrow that gap. However, I also intend to establish a standards fund for further education, which will assist with sixth-form college provision, and I wish to talk to the Local Government Association about how we, over a long period, can narrow the gap between the amount of money that goes into sixth forms and the amount that goes into sixth-form colleges, without in any way threatening existing provision for sixth forms.

Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the difference between a local practical reality and Conservative Members' rhetoric? Can he confirm that Ministers have recognised that it is as a result of the failures of the Conservative party over the past 18 years that my county of Derbyshire has suffered so severely? Can he also confirm, and accept my congratulations on it, that a token of the early pledges that are being implemented is that, as a result of that recognition, in Derbyshire the number of infants in classes of more than 30 will next year decrease from the scandalous figure of 13,000 to 1,000? Does he agree that another token of the early pledges is that six—yes, six—schools in my constituency with outside toilets are to have them removed? Does he further agree that that was the legacy of failure that the Conservatives left us?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be problems in providing buildings to accommodate the extra classes that will be produced by the reduction in

class sizes? Does he agree, however, that, with the ingenuity, flexibility and co-operation with their schools of county councils such as Derbyshire while the buildings problem is being tackled, that problem can be solved if there is good will and determination?

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the determination and the will of Derbyshire county council will bear fruit from this September, as my hon. Friend described; obviously, the £1 million revenue that we have allocated is being used effectively and wisely. We obviously recognise that, as I said in my statement, capital is crucial to delivery. That is why, of the £620 million announced, £160 million of capital will be earmarked specifically for use in tackling that problem.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, although the extra resources will be very welcome in Northumberland, even the Labour-controlled local education authority would want me to remind him of the huge disparities that the standard spending assessment system creates? Under that system, whereas the equivalent of £1,800 is spent on each secondary school child in Northumberland, £3,200 is spent on each similar child in Kensington and Chelsea. Does he realise how important the review of that system is? The amounts produced today, valuable though they are, will not fill that gap.

Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to hear that I agree with him. A situation that results in Torbay being regarded as more deprived than Sheffield is bound to get my gall up. We do need to tackle that problem. However, the questions asked in Prime Minister's questions this afternoon illustrated what a long, hard and difficult haul it will be to redistribute resources. Although one authority may receive £1 million more for a single secondary school than another authority receives for a school in a different part of the country, the former will not want those resources to be removed. Consequently, increasing resources and distributing fairly must go hand in hand.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will not be aware that I spent my constituency week visiting schools in my constituency—both those within and those without the education service. I can assure him that his statement this afternoon was eagerly awaited, and its contents will be greatly welcomed by all the teachers whom I met. Of the great sums that he announced today, can he tell us what percentage and, in absolute terms, what sum will go in increases for teachers and ancillary staff in schools, so that they will know that if they give something, they will be properly rewarded? As far as I am concerned, all my teachers are super teachers.

Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are committed to retaining the School Teachers Review Body, and we are committed to its independence. We shall submit evidence to it in due course that will outline for the year ahead, and I hope on a three-year basis as well, how we intend to meet the challenge of balancing inflationary pressures and the necessary rewards for high


performance. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to pre-empt the School Teachers Review Body report even before I have submitted the evidence to it.

Sir David Madel: How will the Government find the extra teachers for their expansion plans, when they have announced a tightening of the guidelines for pay review bodies, which decoded means that teachers' remuneration will become less attractive to potential new recruits?

Mr. Blunkett: I have not decoded our announcement in that way. I have decoded it as placing emphasis on reward and retention, morale, and ensuring that we can recruit and retain the highest level of graduates into the profession. We want to attract into the teaching profession not just new entrants from university taking the postgraduate certificate in education, but people with life experience. We want them to come back in, recognising the part that they can play and being well rewarded for it.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will my right hon. Friend accept particular congratulations on the extra £250 million that is going into further education? That is a good riposte to the excellent Select Committee report that has just been produced. I know that the further education college and sixth-form college in my constituency will be especially grateful. Over the next three years, will my right hon. Friend also look closely at the way in which the further and higher education sectors co-operate? If the target of an extra 500,000 students is to be reached, there must be the closest co-operation because, as many of us know, people start in FE and progress to HE later.

Mr. Blunkett: I can confirm that co-operation is important. Lord Dearing's report placed emphasis on the development of sub-degree higher education courses. We should see how further education can play its part in linking initial access, level 2 and level 3 qualifications and higher education. That is an important part of creating a ladder of learning, so that lifelong learning means exactly that.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Lord Dearing's report placed great emphasis on retaining the student grant. Does the Secretary of State have anything to say about the fact that in the year to 2000, his proposals will take £600 million out of the pockets of the neediest students and not put a penny of that money back, even into higher education?

Mr. Blunkett: I cannot confirm that. It seems to have escaped the hon. Gentleman that in the current year, from this autumn, under present cash accounting systems, we are paying out the money to ensure that students do not lose out in the coming year. They will, of course, be paying back over time. We have about £200 million in the coming year from the independent fee contribution. That is all the new money from the changes in the coming year. We are more than matching that with the £280 million that I announced this afternoon, and with the massive investment in research and the science base of our universities, from which all our universities will gain enormously.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I welcome the £50 million for research, but can the Department do

something about the problem of short-term research contracts? Researchers are living from hand to mouth, and cannot produce their best science. May I be forgiven a naughty question? What on earth were we all doing on Monday in this place at midnight?

Mr. Blunkett: The answer to my hon. Friend's second question appears to be, "Playing silly so-and-sos," but I am delighted that we reached a sensible solution, and I thank all who helped that solution on its way. As for the first question, I believe that there is a genuine problem in regard to short-term contracts. The introduction of such contracts was a feature of the current instability. I hope that, as we develop a three-year funding regime by means of the dual system involving the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Higher Education Funding Council, we shall be able to introduce more stability and consistency, enabling people to take on researchers and research assistants under a more equitable and acceptable contract system.

Mr. John Greenway: I assure the Secretary of State that I shall encourage North Yorkshire county council and City of York council—as I always have—to spend on education whatever money he passports to them. However, this year's increase in the education budget meant a 14 per cent. council tax increase in North Yorkshire. What increases will be necessary in future to fund the extra expenditure that the Secretary of State has announced today?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also assure us that, in rural areas, the class size limit of 30 will not be imposed so rigidly that young children will be required to travel long distances to school?

Mr. Blunkett: All the money that I have announced is allocated from central Government. Obviously, local government will also contribute resources raised through the council tax, with which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will deal separately.
As for class sizes in rural areas, my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has made it clear on several occasions in the House that we seek to ensure that children need not travel unacceptable distances so that the class size pledge is met.

Helen Jones: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement of the "Sure Start" programme, which will help to break the cycle of poverty and deprivation, which means that many children will fail before they even start school. I know that the programme will also be welcomed by many schools in my constituency that must deal with the consequences of the failure to give children a proper start in life.
Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the programme? How will it be targeted towards the most deprived areas, where it is most needed?

Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for her support. We are beginning a long-overdue process of getting people to work together closely at local level, and it is from such local partnerships that programmes such as this should grow. There will be an inter-ministerial group. Such a group already exists, chaired by my hon. Friend


the Minister for Public Health. She, along with Ministers from my Department, recommends to me the direction in which we should go—targeting resources, but also ensuring that we can back the imaginative programmes that have already been started with health visitors, school nurses and the development of primary health care practice, linking all that with child care and nursery provision and extending the early excellence centres so ably fostered by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris).

Mr. Phil Willis: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) in congratulating the Secretary of State on securing such a good deal from the Chancellor. I particularly welcome the money that is going into universities, and the additional £1.1 billion announced yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that, for universities and colleges, one of the great injustices of past years has been the per capita funding decrease. That has continued year by year, certainly for the past 10 years. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the figures that he has announced, and his plans for the period up to the end of this Parliament, will involve a per capita increase in spending on both further and higher education that is above the rate of inflation and will provide colleges and universities with genuine new money and security?

Mr. Blunkett: The genuine money is there. It is committed. We are combining increased access with a reinforcement of quality. I mentioned the standards fund that I intend to establish for further education. The real-terms increase for further education will be 5.5 per cent. and that for universities will be 3 per cent.

Mr. Derek Twigg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement and particularly welcome the extra funding for further education. Widnes sixth-form college in my constituency suffered a 25 per cent. cut in its resources under the policies of the previous Government, so the announcement will be particularly welcomed there. Will not his announcement also be recognised as a confirmation of the importance of the FE sector in increasing skills, competitiveness and training in the economy?

Mr. Blunkett: I hope that it will. Further education, including sixth-form colleges, has been the Cinderella of the education service. It has been neglected by the media and by politicians—not by Labour Members, but certainly by the previous Government. In allocating resources this year and for the following two years, I want to ensure that those who write and comment on politics and education who have never had experience of further education are not allowed to get away with it any longer. The crucial role of further education in skilling our people and in giving access to the disadvantaged must be recognised, so that we can put it on a par with the areas of education that receive greater attention.

Dr. Brian Iddon: May I welcome the extra £50 million for university research, along with

all the other money that has been announced this week? About 12 universities spend about 50 per cent. of this country's research investment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement will give an opportunity for extra money to trickle down into universities whose research departments have been struggling in recent years?

Mr. Blunkett: It will make an enormous difference. In our allocations to the research councils and the Higher Education Funding Council, we must ensure that the next research assessment exercise is fairer and more equitable than the last.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: A hard-bitten and cynical vice-chancellor to whom I spoke this morning said that he felt like rushing outside and dancing in the street after hearing about the treatment of the higher education sector. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the vast increase in the resources going to higher education in particular, but does he accept that that is only half the battle? Money can still be frittered away. Poorly performing schools, departments or colleges can waste money as well as using it well. Will he redouble the Government's efforts to learn from best practice and reward productivity, good management and leadership, to ensure that the money is well spent every day and every month until we get the results that we all want?

Mr. Blunkett: I respect my hon. Friend's long-standing commitment. I believe that we should do that because value for money in every area is critical. The picture of a vice-chancellor dancing in the street intrigues me. If my hon. Friend can get the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to agree to dance with him, we shall all have a barney in Parliament square that will set the world alight once and for all.

Miss Melanie Johnson: I recently visited the nursery at the YMCA in Welwyn Garden City. The staff there will be delighted by this afternoon's announcement. They told me that they wanted their work to be celebrated more by the Government. Today's announcement gives a clear message to all the staff working in the under-five sector about the value that the Government place on their work. I hope that my right hon. Friend will endorse those comments.
I am slightly concerned about work with pre-school playgroups. I know that, through partnerships and additional funding, we have ensured that the fall-out from the Conservatives' nursery voucher policy has been minimised. Will my right hon. Friend say a few words about how he will continue to ensure that the voluntary pre-school sector will help to contribute to our many achievements in under-five provision as a result of today's announcement?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes; as I said earlier, early years partnerships are vital. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley, will not approve early years partnership programmes unless they are collaborative and meaningfully involve the voluntary and private sectors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) will know, we have allocated additional resources this year to protect viable and flourishing playgroups. We are in discussion at the


moment on ensuring that allocation is transparent and fair. I am very keen to ensure that the Pre-School Learning Alliance and similar groups can play an essential part in encouraging their members to be part of the partnership and to make imaginative and flexible provision on the ground, which involves parents. The great advantage of "Sure Start" is that it links the parent and the needs of the child. There is no more obvious example of that than Pre-School Learning Alliance activity, in which parents are part of the process and of the solution.

Adjournment Debates

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to make a low-key point of order of which I think you have had notice from the Clerks. It concerns the debate on climate change that was initiated this morning by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I am not getting at the Opposition spokesman in that debate, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), but, in an hour and a half's debate, he spoke for longer than the Minister, who had only nine minutes to reply.
The Chair has been very good to me, and I feel a little coy about raising the matter. Nevertheless, are not the one-and-a-half-hour Adjournment debates the successor of debates on the Consolidated Fund? The tradition in debates on the Consolidated Fund was that matters were raised by Back-Bench Members of Parliament and replied to by the Minister, and were not subject to Opposition spokesmen, who had many other opportunities to speak.

Madam Speaker: I am delighted that the hon. Member has raised this matter. I regard Adjournment debates, particularly those on a Wednesday morning, to be the province of Back-Bench Members. Since we have had these debates, I have tried to restrict Government, official Opposition and Liberal Democrat spokesmen to 10 minutes, which I think is reasonable. I looked at the record of this morning's proceedings and found that the Liberal Democrat spokesman spoke for 13 minutes, which I think is unwarranted. As both Government and Opposition Whips know, I have always maintained that I will not allow spokespersons speaking for political parties during Adjournment debates to take more than their 10 minutes. Adjournment debates to my mind are for Back-Bench Members; I want to hear from them. It is the period during which they can express themselves. I hope that those responsible will take heed of what I have said in response to the point of order. I thank the hon. Member for raising it.

BILLS PRESENTED

NORTHERN IRELAND

Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Robertson, Mr. Secretary Davies and Mr. Paul Murphy, presented a Bill to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland for the purpose of implementing the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 229].

PARTICIPANTS IN SPORTING EVENTS (ASSAULTS, ETC.)

Mr. Paul Flynn presented a Bill to make provision with respect to offences involving the intentional striking of blows to the head by participants in sporting events: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 October, and to be printed [Bill 230].

Community Reinvestment Disclosure

Mr. Tony Colman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require financial institutions to maintain and to publish details of their lending and financial services to individuals, businesses and organisations by postcode; to ensure that redlining of neighbourhoods does not take place; and to ensure that regeneration objectives are met through a public-private partnership of the financial institutions together with central and local government.
In seeking support for the Bill, I have spoken to several financial institutions, including banks, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority. I pay tribute to the research and advocacy of the New Economics Foundation and its executive directive, Ed Mayo. I pay particular tribute to the inspirational leadership of the Citizen's bank in New England in the United States, by Larry Fish and Scott Kisting, who first drew my attention to the great opportunities that lie in community reinvestment disclosure. None the less, I must make it clear that the views that I now express are mine alone.
I believe that there is a real economic injustice in the United Kingdom at the moment, whereby, simply because of where they live and work, individuals, businesses and organisations cannot access credit or other financial services.
The evidence is patchy and anecdotal, but the Office of Fair Trading review of financial services for vulnerable consumers, due in the autumn, will add to our knowledge of the problem. Individual financial institutions have told me about other financial institutions "red-lining". Nobody knows the full situation, only that it exists. That is why I am bringing forward my proposal for disclosure.
The concept of the Bill is built on the success in the United States of the Community Reinvestment Act and the associated Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. The United States Treasury estimates that, because of those two Acts, US retail banks have committed about $300 billion to low or moderate-income neighbourhoods, and discovered that such lending can be profitable.
Those two Acts have within them the sanction of withdrawal of the US banking charter should the American regulator not be satisfied with the performance of individual banks in fulfilling the requirements of the Acts. I do not propose such a power for any regulator in the United Kingdom. However, my research leads me to believe that banks and financial institutions want a legal framework to require them to disclose any red-lining—that is, any areas where they have chosen not to offer loans and other financial instruments. I envisage self-certification with a light touch of regulation or investigation by the FSA on an exception basis.
There are practical options for developing disclosure so that it is affordable—for example, by covering only a selected range of key financial products—and appropriate, which may mean, for example, enabling creative and responsible partnerships to emerge, which can promote reinvestment and regeneration. It should also be fair, and apply on a self-certification basis to all relevant financial institutions.
Like the American Act, the Bill proposes that any lending or other financial instruments so offered be "within prudential requirements". I do not suggest that

those who cannot afford it be given such credit. We are talking about under-served markets. We are not asking banks to act as charities, simply not to discriminate in their activity as banks.
My concern is to ensure that people who can afford credit are not deemed unworthy simply because of where they live. The closure of bank branches has been justified on the basis of cost and the alternative availability of telephone banking, but that has meant that people in disadvantaged neighbourhoods have lost their local knowledgeable managers, who knew to whom to give credit. Instead, they have been given, in telephone banking, a system whose first question is, "What is your address and postcode?" If people answer that question "wrongly", the conversation is terminated, whatever their financial situation may be. I believe that credit scoring by area is also rife in banking circles.
I know the difficulty that people in my constituency have in obtaining a mortgage on former council properties in certain areas. Over the past 10 years, the proportion of low-income households in the United Kingdom able to obtain home contents insurance has dropped from 70 to 40 per cent.
However, if we scratch the surface of any low-income community in the United Kingdom, we find a surprising level of economic activity. Low-income households patch together income from a variety of sources. They can make good use of credit and financial services. Indeed, there is increasing evidence from groups such as the New Economics Foundation that low-income communities have demonstrated the capacity to create jobs and economic activity. The withdrawal of financial services is therefore detrimental to all the efforts of the Government, as well as of the people themselves, to promote economic opportunity for employment and regeneration.
Excellent models exist of community finance initiatives, ranging from credit unions to community loan funds, operating in low-income areas. Yet, even with regulatory change, those are small in relation to the need, and, in any case, can often develop only in partnership with outside financiers. The Bill would improve the prospect of that happening, to the benefit of the people whom such initiatives serve.
I do not know the full extent of red-lining in the United Kingdom. I believe that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom economy that we should know. There is a commitment to private-public partnerships to regenerate disadvantaged areas. Here is a way in which banks and financial institutions can play their part in ensuring that regeneration takes place, and is not held up because of a flaw in the market availability of credit and financial instruments.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the £800 million new deal for communities. As part of the public-private partnership for those communities, I hope that the Bill will go forward with the support of the banks and financial institutions of the UK. At this point in the parliamentary Session, a miracle would be needed for the Bill to be passed into law. I hope that the considerable support that the Bill has could lead to the Government taking the matter forward. If not, I will be back next Session.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Sir Peter Lloyd, Sir Michael Spicer, Mr. Charles Clarke, Ms Ruth Kelly, Ms Hazel Blears, Dr. Alan Whitehead and Mr. Chris Mullin.

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT DISCLOSURE

Mr. Tony Colman accordingly presented a Bill to require financial institutions to maintain and to publish details of their lending and financial services to individuals, businesses and organisations by postcode; to ensure that redlining of neighbourhoods does not take place; and to ensure that regeneration objectives are met through a public-private partnership of the financial institutions together with central and local government: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 231].

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — School Standards and Framework Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

POWER TO SET LIMITS ON INFANT CLASS SIZES.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations—

(a) impose a limit on class sizes for infant classes at maintained schools; and
(b) specify the school years in relation to which any such limit is to have effect.


(2) Any limit imposed under this section shall specify the maximum number of pupils that a class to which the limit applies may contain while an ordinary teaching session is conducted by a single qualified teacher.
(2A) Subject to subsections (3) and (3A), regulations under this section shall be so framed that—

(a) the maximum number specified in pursuance of subsection (2) is 30, and
(b) that limit has effect in relation to the 2001–02 school year and any subsequent year.


(3) Regulations under this section may—

(a) provide for any limit imposed under this section to take effect—

(i) at the same time in the case of each of the age groups into which the pupils in infant classes fall, or
(ii) at different times (which may be earlier than the beginning of the school year mentioned in subsection (2A)) in the case of different such age groups;


(b) provide that, in any circumstances specified in the regulations, any such limit either is not to apply or is to operate in such manner as is so specified.


(3A) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2A)—

(a) by substituting for "30" such other number as is specified in the order; or
(b) by substituting for the reference to the 2001–02 school year a reference to such other school year as is so specified.")

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 108, 150, 151, 327, 331, 332 and 408.

Mr. Byers: I shall try to be as brief as possible so that the House can spend longer on the issues where there is clearly disagreement about the approach adopted in the House of Lords.
The amendments seek to implement the recommendations of the Deregulation Committee that a class size limit of 30 should appear in the Bill. The amendments achieve that objective, which the Government support. They also provide that the time limit by which the class size pledge should be introduced should be the year 2001–02. That is the legal deadline, as it were, by which the class size pledge should be introduced.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said this afternoon, we intend to introduce that pledge from September 2001, although, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, we will be able to provide resources to local education authorities and Church authorities to allow them to implement the pledge from September 2000, if that is their wish. The amendments meet the requirements of the Deregulation Committee, and I commend them to the House.

Mrs. Theresa May: I assure the Minister that I do not intend to delay proceedings on technical matters, although there are a number of groupings of amendments—where it is proposed not to disagree with the Lords—where we will wish to make some comments. We have had lively debates about class sizes on a number of occasions, and I will not reopen the issue as a whole.
I note in passing that there are no fewer than 260 Government amendments from the Lords. The Government have been amending the Bill right up to the last minute—they have constantly had to make changes—which suggests that they did not think through all its practical implications.
I have two questions on class sizes. They have been put to Ministers and to the Secretary of State in various debates, but we have not yet received answers to them. The first is technical; I was asked it by a head teacher when I visited a school in my constituency on Monday. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked the same question in the Opposition Supply day debate on class sizes, but, as I recall, he did not receive a response. It concerns the definition of a class that contains mixed ages. When does a class of five and six-year-olds or of six and seven-year-olds—or, after the infant stage, of seven and eight-year-olds—count as one to which the 30 limit applies? When a class contains a mixture of seven and eight-year-olds, will it be the majority of children's ages that count in determining whether the limit applies?
The second question is not technical; it goes to the heart of whether the Government can implement their class size pledge. The Minister will know that many people have raised the matter of parental choice. The Local Government Association has made it clear that the class size pledge can be implemented only by a reduction in parental choice. Will the Minister reassure the House—he and the Secretary of State were asked this in the Opposition Supply day debate—that children will not be turned away from a school that their parents want them to attend because of the class size limit of 30?

Mr. Byers: The 260 Government amendments have improved the Bill; very often, they were tabled as a result of the comments made by Opposition Members. We make no apology for that, as we believe that the Bill is now far better because of the changes that we have been prepared to make along the way after listening to Opposition Members, to the Churches and to parents. By working in partnership, we now have a Bill that will introduce a new school structure framework that has broad and popular support—that is why I very much commend the Bill to the House.
The Bill will create a legal requirement on local education authorities to produce plans to reduce class sizes. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) will


know that we have sent out regulations for consultation; if she looks carefully at them, she will see that there is a clear requirement that local authorities will have to give regard to the expression of parental preference in bringing forward their plans for the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State will not approve plans that do not give regard to parental preference.
Conservative legislation never stipulated parental choice; it provided for an ability to express parental preference. We have made it clear that the expression of parental preference, which we are retaining, will not be hindered in any way by the introduction of the Bill's measures on class sizes.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead also asked what constituted a class for five, six and seven-year-olds. The definition is contained in the Bill; I cannot lay my hands on it immediately, but I shall write to her and give her the reference. With those comments, I hope that we can agree to the Lords amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 6

PREPARATION OF EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing an education development plan the authority shall have regard, in particular, to the education of children (within the meaning of subsection (2)) who have special educational needs.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In Committee, many hon. Members expressed the desire that the Bill should require express provision in education development plans for children with special educational needs. I made the point both then and on Report that it was not technically necessary, as there was a requirement on local authorities to address the needs of all children in their area in their EDPs
4.45 pm
However, several peers felt that the needs of SEN children would be better protected if provision were written into the Bill. We are happy to agree, and to state beyond any possibility of doubt that we expect local authorities to state in their EDPs how they intend to address the needs of every child, including SEN children. I commend the Lords amendment to the House.

Mrs. Angela Browning: How will local authorities describe categories of special educational needs, or will a generic term be used? For example, will SEN children be only those who are statemented or will those who are unstatemented but for whom classroom assistance has been provided be included? How will the categorisation be written in the Bill?

Ms Morris: I know that the hon. Lady takes a close interest in the subject, and she will know that there is no standard definition of SEN. Each local authority interprets it in its own way. We are investigating that in our

consideration of responses to the Green Paper. I would expect local authorities to use their own definition of SEN and, as a rule of thumb, I would want them to provide an explanation of what they are doing to raise standards for all the children, for example, on each of the five stages in the code of practice.
There is no way out, because, however a local authority chooses to define SEN, it is still answerable for raising standards for every single child. The reason for the amendment—and why we are happy to accede to it—is merely to remove any fear that SEN would be a bolt-on to local authorities' thinking. However local authorities define SEN, those needs and that local definition must be addressed in an annexe to their EDP.
I accept the hon. Lady's signal that there is a real need for a discussion of the legal definition of SEN. We will do that at a later date.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her comments. We had a debate on this subject in Committee, and it would have been nice if the Government had accepted the point then, but we are grateful that they have done so now. It is important that there should be a specific requirement on local education authorities to include provision for children with special educational needs in their education development plans.
The Minister's answer concerns me somewhat. I recognise that there is a practical difficulty, in that different definitions are used by different local authorities, but it would be unfortunate if the inclusion of the amendment left some children out and did not ensure that they were properly covered in the plan. I wonder whether the Government have any intention of examining EDPs when the LEAs submit them, to ensure that all categories of children with special educational needs are being properly catered for, regardless of the definition used, and that no children fall out of the net.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should remind the House that this is not the Committee stage of the Bill when hon. Members can speak several times. When the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) resumed her seat, no one else was rising, which is why I called the Minister to sum up the debate. Technically, I cannot allow her to speak again in the debate on this amendment. If hon. Members would bear that in mind, we might proceed in a more orderly fashion.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

ESTABLISHMENT OF EDUCATION ACTION ZONES

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 10, line 5, at end insert
("; or
(b) with a view to enabling it to achieve improving standards in the provision of education once it becomes a maintained school, any new school which has a temporary governing body.")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10, 166, 187 to 189 and 358.

Mr. Byers: This group of amendments covers three broad areas. The first group deals with clause 10, as a


difficulty may exist with schools that were created once an education action zone had been established. A school may close or schools may merge and, as the regulations and the Bill stood before consideration in the Lords, such new schools would not be part of the zone. Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 remedy that potential weakness and would allow a new school that is created within the zone to be fully a part of it, which is an appropriate way forward.
The amendments to clause 13 deal with the procedure and means by which disapplication of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 will take place. The amendments ensure that all governing bodies, including those that are not the legal employer of the teacher, have the power to disapply a teacher's pay and conditions document, if they wish. It is appropriate that all governing bodies should have that important power. We commend those amendments to the House.
The final group deals with the accounts of education action zones being audited and made available to the National Audit Office, which is an appropriate way forward, and the amendments would also ensure that education action forums have charitable status. That is particularly important because such status will act as an incentive to private companies making donations in cash or in kind to the forums. Obviously, certain tax concessions will be available as a result of the forums having charitable status.
Those three groups of amendments are important, and I commend them to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 15

CASES WHERE LEA MAY EXERCISE POWERS OF INTERVENTION

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 13, line 11, after ("notice") insert ("in writing")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 18.

Mr. Byers: The prime responsibility for improving a school that is failing must rest with the school. We will all have failed if we allow a school to drift into failure. It is far better for the school and the individual children concerned for intervention to be early and light before the school fails, rather than waiting until it is underperforming, needs special measures and intervention has to be heavy.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 would give the local education authority a responsibility to put in writing its view that a school was drifting towards failure. That power of intervention is important before a school needs to be put under special measures. Because of the importance of that approach, the amendments would ensure that the local education authority has to give notice of its concerns in writing, which is an appropriate course.
Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 to clause 16 put right an omission. They allow Church authorities to take action at voluntary-aided schools on the same footing as

local education authorities do at their schools. The Church authorities raised the matter, and we are pleased to meet their concern.
Amendment No. 18 was tabled in the other place to meet representations from the Church authorities about the appointment of additional governors to voluntary-aided schools when they enter into special measures. The Secretary of State has the power to appoint additional governors in those circumstances, but it is appropriate that he should consult relevant diocesan authorities, particularly about which individuals should be appointed to such a governing body. The Church authorities have welcomed the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 13, line 13, at end insert
("(whether or not the notice is combined with a notice under section 61(2A)(c)).")

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 74 to 84, 129, 279 to 281, 375 and 397.

Ms Morris: The major amendments in this group are our response to the publication of the report on truancy and school exclusions. That was much discussed in Committee, and we said that we might return to it. We have amended the Bill to give the Secretary of State a new power to require the governing bodies of maintained schools to set targets for reduction in unauthorised absence when their attendance levels are below average. All evidence shows that children who miss school—for short periods or long—are more likely to leave school without formal qualifications and without making the most of their abilities. They are most likely to become socially excluded in adult life as well as in childhood.
We have introduced new safeguards to ensure that schools cannot too readily exclude pupils. A balance is needed on exclusions. We are not taking away from schools the right to exclude, which is sometimes necessary, and which must be a decision for the head teacher and the governing body. However, we are determined to reduce exclusions and to ensure that schools do not use them as a weapon when other tools might be better.
The amendment would require head teachers and governors to have regard to guidance on exclusion. Previously, the guidance could be considered if heads and governors wished, but there was no legal requirement on them to have regard to it. We hope that that will bring coherence to reasons for exclusion. One explanation for the vastly different numbers of children excluded by different schools is the criteria in use.
There was strong support in the other place for a specific reference in the Bill to bullying. No one would disagree with our requiring schools, ourselves, local authorities, parents and communities to ensure that children are neither bullied nor bullies. We are happy to accept amendment No. 74, which requires head teachers to determine measures as part of a school's discipline policy to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 make life easier for local authorities that want to invoke clauses 61, 60 and 70. The amendments will allow local authorities to use powers flexibly without having to serve different types of notices, as that would be confusing as well as unnecessarily bureaucratic.
Amendments Nos. 279, 280 and 281 make minor changes to the process for hearing parental appeals against permanent exclusion of their child. Amendments Nos. 78, 80 to 83, 129 and 375 are technical and deal with flaws in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 20

NEW CATEGORIES OF MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 18, line 35, at beginning insert ("(subject to subsection (4A))")

5 pm

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 20, 21, 31, 145, 255 and 409.

Mr. Byers: I am always surprised when a relatively small change requires so many amendments, but that is the way of parliamentary counsel.
It will normally be the case under the new framework that a grant-maintained school, in moving into the new framework, will be maintained by the local education authority in whose area that school is situated. However, there may be isolated cases where schools are located within a particular local education authority area where, perhaps for historical or traditional reasons, the bulk of the children attending the school may be resident in a neighbouring local education authority. In those circumstances, the local education authority with the majority of children attending the school may feel that it is the appropriate body to take responsibility for maintaining the school. This may apply to only a handful of schools, but we must ensure that clause 20 is amended to allow a local education authority in those circumstances to appeal to the Secretary of State and make representations so that it can take responsibility for maintaining the school.
The amendment provides that, by 30 November 1998, a former maintaining local education authority, or the local education authority in whose area the school is situated, may appeal to the Secretary of State. We feel that that is an appropriate course of action and agree with the amendments.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister consider a small issue relating to amendments Nos. 20 and 21 that is of great significance to my constituents? He said that an appeal can be made to the Secretary of State. Southend-on-Sea has four grant-aided grammar schools that provide for 25 per cent. of its children. We are entitled to keep that arrangement as long as the local people support it. Additional places

go to children from other authorities. As a result of our 25 per cent. rule, the standard demanded of a Southend child is different from that demanded of a child from outside. This has been our situation for some time.
We support the arrangement because the 25 per cent. rule gives an opportunity for children to break through. Our education results are better than those for the rest of Essex. As is the case for Northern Ireland, our results are better overall than those of England, Scotland and Wales. Will the amendments and the change of category from grant-aided to community or foundation school status change other things of which the House is not aware?
The change that we have in mind is the Greenwich judgment, which resulted from legislation passed by the previous Government, and undermined the provision for an authority to make a special demand, such as the 25 per cent. rule for children in Southend-on-Sea. We escaped the judgment because we were able to argue that it should not apply to grant-aided schools. If the judgment applied, it would mean that Southend's grammar schools would be open to applications from anyone who wanted to come to them from other parts of Essex. As the Minister well knows, many people from places near Southend would like their children to go there. I appreciate that there is an argument for the Greenwich judgment, I appreciate that there is an argument for grant-aided schools and I appreciate that there is an argument for abolishing grant-aided schools. But it worries me that, in passing the amendments, we could be changing something without being aware of it.
Am I raising just a silly fear? I honestly am not. I know that a paper put forward by Shoeburyness county high school, which was considered by Southend-on-Sea borough council, gave the impression that the new status of that school, which has a small selective intake, would change the whole arrangement. Does the Minister believe that, as a consequence of the amendments and the change in the classification of a school, Southend's educational system will be changed significantly? Will it mean that people who are willing to bring their children from all parts of Essex and further afield will have equal admission to those schools?
If we are to make such a change, the House should consider it in detail. It is not something which should slip through. I have raised this point not to hold up proceedings—I appreciate that we have many amendments to consider and I have no wish to detain the House on other amendments—but because I hate the situation that often arises in the House, when we make one change in something and create a rather dramatic consequence of which we were not aware.
In Southend-on-Sea, we appreciate not a change of policy by the Government, but the fact that the Government have kindly, despite what they said previously, indicated that where grammar school arrangements are acceptable to the local community, we should be allowed to keep them. We simply hope that it will be possible for our arrangements to continue. If, by chance, we cannot continue and the Greenwich judgment has to apply, will the Minister have power to do anything about the appeal to which he has referred? Will he be able to say to Southend that despite the judgment, it can carry on as before? I assure the Minister that the issue is of real significance and could have a serious impact on Southend borough council.
If, by chance, my fears are right, the impact on Southend unitary authority will be significant. It will have to make provision for many additional secondary school places. Children who at present go to our grammar schools will have to go to other schools, and there simply is not room. There will be an impact on areas, such as Rochford, round about the Southend area, although, at present, only a limited number of children from that area go to the Southend grammar schools. If the numbers were more substantial, there would be a dramatic impact on schools such as the King Edmund school and others in the area.
I hope that the Minister will consider the issue carefully. I appreciate that I have thrown it at him without giving him notice, and I apologise sincerely for that. If there are still difficulties, will the Minister simply look at the matter? The fundamental point is that I hope that he will not, in consequence of making one change, make other changes without being aware of them. Will the Minister assure me, first, that he will look at the issue carefully and, secondly, that if an appeal were made by Southend, he would have some power to do something about it? If he can do so, we shall be very grateful in Southend-on-Sea.

Mr. Byers: Although I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, I know that he does not raise silly points, and that he makes representations and argues on issues that are relevant to the people of Southend. I take the points that he raises very seriously. I will, as he has requested, look again at the implications of the amendments for Southend. I assure him that if the amendments affect Southend—I am not sure that they do and I will write to him on the issue—and it is felt that an appeal is appropriate, not only do I guarantee that Southend will have the right to an appeal, but I shall be more than happy to meet him and representatives of Southend to hear at first hand their views and concerns as part of that appeal process.
I had in mind in relation to the amendments a number of other parts of the country and individual schools that might be affected, but I did not have schools in Southend in mind. I will revisit the matter to make sure that I was correct in my first view. I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know precisely whether the amendments cover the position in Southend. As I said, I think that they do not, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 21 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 18, line 42, after first ("day"") insert
("(except in Part I of Schedule 31)")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 30, 32, 33, 37 to 39, 51, 91, 156, 161, 163, 167, 176, 190 to 193, 208, 233, 356, 357, 359, 360, 406 and 410.

Mr. Byers: I am tempted to go through each of the amendments in some detail, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but,

you will be pleased to hear, I shall not. I notice that, on the Speaker's selection list, the amendments are referred to as "technical amendments"; in the brief from my civil servants that I read last night, they are referred to as "highly technical amendments" and I have to admit that they are.
I apologise to the House for the large number of amendments included in the group. They cover four main issues in respect of the new framework. First, they clarify various definitions contained within the Bill in matters such as "appointed day", "community or foundation school" and
land held on trust for the purposes of the school".
Secondly, they ensure that rights and liabilities will transfer with property, which is wholly appropriate. Thirdly, having received advice from the Charity Commission, we have clarified the charitable status of schools. Fourthly, we have ensured that the necessary regulation-making powers are in place in relation to group foundations and the choice of category process.
It is appropriate that the House of Lords raised and dealt with these matters and I hope that the House can agree with the Lords in these highly technical amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 23

SCHOOL ORGANISATION COMMITTEES

Lords amendment: No. 34, to leave out clause 23

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 35 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 36, 40 and 41, Lords amendment No. 198 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (c) to words so restored, Lords amendment No. 199 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendment to words so restored, Lords amendments Nos. 200 to 207, 213 to 232 and 235.

Ms Morris: The whole issue of school organisation committees and adjudicators is one with which all hon. Members currently present in the Chamber are thoroughly familiar, as we have discussed it previously. Let me start by saying that there is general agreement that decisions on those important issues should be taken at local level wherever possible. We reached that agreement during our many discussions, so let us start from that point.
Nobody pretends that the present system, which we want to replace, is the best way in which to deal with the business in question, as many proposals for change to school organisation are currently considered here in Whitehall by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State currently takes decisions on all proposals relating to voluntary and grant-maintained schools, and on all local education authority proposals to which there have been objections; in addition, the Secretary of State may call in any LEA proposal for his own decision.
Local education authorities lose no powers under the arrangements that we want to put in place of existing arrangements. Local authorities will still be responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient school places in their area; and they will draft the important school organisation plan that must underpin all decisions about schools in the area. LEAs will retain their powers to publish proposals for all types of change to community schools and to decide any of their own proposals that do not attract objections. Where our proposals do introduce change is in the making of decisions on those proposals that local education authorities have never had the power to determine: proposals of their own that attract objections, and proposals made by voluntary schools and by foundation schools. Under our proposed arrangements, those decisions will be made jointly by all the partners in the local education service, with each having a direct voice in the decisions that are taken.
5.15 pm
We have to recognise that, even under the best of arrangements, there are bound to be occasions when the essential partners in the local education service cannot agree. That is why we propose the appointment of independent adjudicators. Adjudicators will consider cases in the light of principles set out in guidance from the Secretary of State and, as appropriate, will take into account the information in the school organisation plan. Judgments will be made on the relative merits of each case, and adjudicators will be required to set out reasons for their decisions in formal letters.
The focus of the new arrangements that we propose is that there should be local decision making. I believe that school organisation committees will reach decisions on the majority of proposals and that our objective will be achieved, but we have to make sure that there is a mechanism for resolution of organisation and admissions cases that cannot be decided locally. We see great strength in establishing an independent means of reaching such decisions. We greatly regret that the Lords did not accept the strength of those arguments, but, having considered what they said, it remains the Government's view that our proposed approach represents the way ahead for local decision making on changes to local organisations.
We have, of course, listened to other points made about the Bill's provisions by members of the House of Lords. The majority of other amendments in the group are a response to suggestions made by Members of the other place and by other organisations, to whose views we have continued to listen. In particular, the provisions for school organisation committees and adjudicators had been amended before they were removed by the Lords amendments, and, in inviting the house to disagree with the Lords amendments, I invite it to agree the changes that we had proposed before they were removed by the Lords amendments.
Those changes respond particularly to discussions with the Churches and suggestions made by the Equal Opportunities Commission. As a result of discussions with both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, we introduced amendments that make it clear on the face of the Bill that decisions by school organisation committees on school organisation plans and on proposals for change to school organisation must be unanimous. At the same time, we provided for it to be possible for

unanimity to be reached within a school organisation committee even when one or more groups chose to abstain or were not present at the meeting.
The group includes amendments that make it clear that, when reaching decisions, school organisation committees and adjudicators must have regard to the duties placed on local authorities and on school governors by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976. That is an important safeguard to support equal opportunities and it is one which we had always intended should exist. We are happy to see it on the face of the Bill, so that there cannot be any shadow of doubt about whether it is intended.
During Committee stage in the House of Commons, we introduced amendments that established a clear timetable for consideration of proposals by school organisation committees. Those amendments give a proposer discretion to require the committee to refer a proposal to the adjudicator, if it has not come to a decision within a specified period. Members of both main Opposition parties expressed concern in. Committee that there might be a loophole whereby proposals could be sat on so that when decisions were eventually made, there were no alternatives to choose from because so much time had elapsed.
The length of the specified period that we are introducing will be set out in regulations, but it might help the House if I say that we intend the limit to be about two months from the end of the objection period.
The special educational needs consortium made several suggestions, including some that will be covered in the discussions on other groups of amendments and one on education development plans to which we have already agreed tonight. On our proposals for school organisation, we have always made it clear that a school organisation committee will need to have access to appropriate SEN expertise, covering provision in special and mainstream schools. There are several ways of achieving that, so we propose to cover that in regulations. This group includes an amendment to make it clear that school organisation plans must refer explicitly to provision for pupils with special educational needs. There is no new intent, but there are new words that confirm that intention beyond any doubt.
The group also contains technical drafting amendments, all of which make helpful changes and improve the Bill. We disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 34, 35, 198 and 199, but we agree with Lords amendments Nos. 36, 40, 41, 201 to 207, 213 to 232 and 235.

Mr. Don Foster: I hope that I shall be able to persuade the House to disagree with the Minister in her request that we disagree with the House of Lords. Whether or not I am successful, I acknowledge that the Minister was right to say that a number of amendments have been made to the arrangements for school organisation committees and adjudicators which will be welcomed on both sides of the House. I hope that, if I cannot persuade the House to disagree with the Minister about the two key clauses, 23 and 24, hon. Members will nevertheless accept the amendments relating to the way in which adjudicators and school organisation committees should work.
The Minister was right to say that this issue has been aired at great length in the House and in another place. On 10 February, the Under-Secretary first uttered the immortal words that
the current system is unacceptable. It does not work well and there is room for improvement…our underlying principle is that it is better if such decisions are taken at local level."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 February 1998; c. 367.]
She was right to say that there is total unanimity in the House on those words. The current system of school organisation arrangements having to be decided by the Secretary of State is simply unacceptable and does not work well. There is certainly room for improvement.
The Minister is right to say also that it is far better for decisions to be made at a local level. However, that does not mean that we have to accept the Government's proposals for making those decisions at a local level. I make my argument against those proposals on two key fronts: first, the bureaucracy that underlies them and, secondly, their democratic accountability.
On bureaucracy, the two clauses that the Lords want to delete propose an extremely lengthy and bureaucratic procedure. The local education authority would be required, in developing its school organisation plan, to hold a review on the issue and produce a consultation paper containing not one but several proposals. It would then have to hold public meetings and involve staff, parents, governors and other interested parties. It would then produce a report not only on its findings, but on the consultation process itself. It must consider the representations that it has received and decide on the appropriate action to take.
The LEA must then go through the whole process again and, having done all that, it must pass its final considerations to the school organisation committee, which will have to go through the whole procedure again. A unanimous decision must be made. If it is not, the issue will be taken on to the adjudicator, who will have to go through the whole process all over again. There is a potential for four tiers to come to a conclusion on the issue. That takes a great deal of time and involves a great deal of bureaucracy.
Will those decisions be made by people who are democratically accountable? They will not. Two days ago, in the debate in another place, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, who waxed lyrical on this issue, was critical of local government and the way in which it sometimes makes decisions. He went on to point out that at least
you can chuck the rascals out".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 17.]
The point about decision making at local level is that decisions should be made by people who are democratically accountable and who can, if the decisions do not please the local community, be chucked out of office.
I should have thought that on the crucial issues of school organisation arrangements, the Government would have thought it important that the decisions were made by a democratically accountable body. In the House, only 48 hours ago, the Secretary of State enunciated that principle when we were discussing Scottish tuition fees. His main argument against Opposition parties' proposals was that it was totally wrong for the decision to be made

by an unelected Chamber—the House of Lords. He stated his principle in terms of the supremacy of the elected body over the unelected body.
If we do not accept the judgment made in the Lords, we shall allow to remain in the Bill a set of arrangements in which an unelected body will be allowed to make decisions that are vital to the education arrangements in a particular area. There will be nothing that people in the local community can do about those decisions, which will be final. They will have no redress—not even the ability to ensure that the adjudicator or the members of the school organisation committee are never allowed to make such decisions again.
For those reasons—our concerns about bureaucracy and the undemocratic nature of the arrangements—we hope that the House will agree with the Lords and delete clauses 23 and 24.

Mrs. May: Like the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I sincerely hope that the House will not pass the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendments. The Lords have done a good service to democracy in removing clauses 23 and 24 from the Bill and in proposing that there should be different arrangements in determining the structure of the school organisation within any particular area.
We had a lengthy debate on this issue in Committee, and several amendments were tabled and rejected by the Government. Those amendments aimed to improve the arrangements that the Government are proposing. I shall rehearse our concerns about the proposals for the school organisation committee and, in particular, the role of the adjudicator. Decisions on school organisation are made primarily by the local education authority, which knows the area and its requirements. There are processes for public consultation. Councillors are elected and, in debates on school organisation, they are able to put the views of the electorate whom they represent.
The decision is then taken by another elected person, the Secretary of State. Throughout that process, elected Members of Parliament may make representations to the Secretary of State regarding proposals for school organisation in their areas and lead constituency delegations to meet the Secretary of State in order to make further representations about the proposed structure. Although many people recognise that the present arrangements have some inadequacies, the emphasis is currently on elected representatives taking decisions and making representations about the proposals at every stage of the procedure.
The Government make much of the need for local accountability. In introducing this group of amendments, the Minister referred to local decision making and local accountability. In a note under cover of the Minister that was produced on 18 February during the Standing Committee's deliberations, the Minister referred to the school organisation and admissions adjudicator. She stated:
It is the Government's aim that decisions should be taken at local level reflecting agreement between the partners.
5.30 pm
I believe that we should agree with the Lords amendments and disagree with the Government on that issue because they propose taking decision making away


from the local level and from those who are accountable to the general public, and placing it ultimately in the hands of an adjudicator who will be appointed by the Secretary of State and who, by definition, will not be local.
On 10 February in Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) moved an amendment to allocate an adjudicator to a specific area. In rejecting that amendment, the Minister replied:
It would he better not to have locally based adjudicators because consistency will be produced throughout the country if adjudicators operate in several geographical areas."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 February 1998: c. 378.]
That comment appears to be contrary to the Minister's statement about the importance of local decision making. Adjudicator appointees will not know the local area. They will be appointed to cover several areas and will not have the local knowledge that is held by the local education authority, elected councillors, elected Members of Parliament and by those who live in the district and wish to make representations. The adjudicator will not be expected to take representations from local delegations.
The document issued by the Minister during the Standing Committee states:
The Adjudicator will make an independent judgment on the relative merits of each case…We expect Adjudicators to consider most cases on paper.
That is what the Minister said: the adjudicator will look at the proposals that have been put forward.

Ms Estelle Morris: Would the hon. Lady care to refer back to the document from which she has quoted and complete paragraph 23? It states:
Adjudicators may wish to receive oral representations.

Mrs. May: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, but she is looking at a different paragraph. The document to which I refer makes no mention of adjudicators receiving oral representations. However, I note the Minister's point in reference to another document. If adjudicators will take oral representations, that is a step forward. However, it does not get past the fact that the adjudicator will not be a local, elected person. The adjudicator will be appointed by the Secretary of State; he or she will not be from the local area and will not be familiar with it. That point was made clear in our discussions in Standing Committee.
Before the decision reaches the adjudicator, it will have passed through the school organisation committee. As the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, the structure of the school organisation committee runs counter to the Government's comments about the need for local accountability and democratic accountability. The school organisation committee will comprise one representative from the local education authority, and its other members will be appointed. Unlike the local education authority, its members will not be elected representatives of the people in that area.
The committee's process will duplicate that of the local education authority. Under that process, elected representatives examine the school organisation structure in their area and reach decisions based on what they believe is right for that area, applying their local knowledge. If there are objections, the matter will go to

a school organisation committee, which—apart from one member from the local education authority—will not comprise elected representatives. Its members will represent different groupings, some of which are identified in the Bill.
In introducing her objections to the Lords amendments, the Minister referred to differences in the proposed structure of voting within school organisation committees. I listened to the Minister carefully in case her comments changed my understanding of that situation. Judging from those proposals and the Minister's comments about them, decisions must be unanimous, but it does not matter whether groups are absent from the committee meeting when the vote is taken or whether representatives choose to abstain.
Let us say that there are six groupings and each has a single vote within the school organisation committee. If two groupings are not represented, two abstain and two vote in favour of a proposal, the decision is considered to be unanimous. I am sure that most people would contend that two votes out of six is far from a unanimous decision. Rather than improving the situation, I suggest that the Government's proposals generate more concern about the definition of unanimous voting within school organisation committees. According to the nature of the voting structure that will be put in place, some groups may be significantly affected. If they are absent from a meeting for perfectly valid reasons, decisions may be taken that affect them, but they will not be able to make representations and contribute to the debate.
In Standing Committee, we discussed the role of Members of Parliament in school organisation committee decisions. Several hon. Members argued strongly that, under the current system, they are able to lead local delegations to meet the Secretary of State before a final decision is taken if there is considerable disagreement about what is proposed. That opportunity for Members of Parliament to assist and to represent the views of their constituents in that way will be removed.
However, we were led to believe that the process would be different in one area of decision making. At the time of the countryside march, the Minister for School Standards announced that the process for rural schools would be different. Far from suggesting that the Secretary of State would not take the final decision regarding rural schools, the Minister's statement implied that the Secretary of State would remain the final arbiter of such decisions. That was welcomed at the time. Since then, the Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards have refused to put that proposal in the Bill and to prove their good intentions.
It appears, from the way in which the Minister and the Government have chosen to handle that issue, that the statement was made with no intention of improving the process for decision taking on the potential closure of rural schools, and with no intention of helping to restore to the process rather more democracy and an opportunity for elected representatives to comment on that proposal, having recognised the genuine needs and concerns of rural communities. Far from that, the Minister was simply trying to make a statement on television before the countryside march, to try to take the sting out of the representations that were being made by the people who were marching through London.

Mr. Byers: I remind the hon. Lady that I have clarified the Government's position numerous times—


most recently, in an Adjournment debate last week. The position is that, until the new framework is in place, there is a presumption against closure of rural schools, which applies at this moment—as a result, some schools have been saved that would not have been saved under the Conservative Government—and that, when the new framework is adopted, the adjudicator will need to comply with guidance set by the Secretary of State.
That code of guidance will include the crystal clear presumption against closure of rural schools serving their communities. If an adjudicator fails to follow that code of guidance, remedies will be available to the aggrieved rural community.

Mrs. May: That was not what the Minister implied when he made his statement before the countryside march. The assumption by the people who took part in that countryside march and others, which was raised in the House, was that, far from it being a case of having "due regard"—a phrase which the Government love to use on numerous occasions as a way of getting out of agreeing to do something—to the issue of rural schools and an assumption against school closure, the decisions would still be taken by the Secretary of State, not by the adjudicator.
Decisions will be taken by an unelected person, in the shape and form of an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State—an adjudicator who does not know the local area, but whose decision will be final. That is what causes people concern. They are worried about the fact that, by these proposals, far from encouraging local decision taking, as the Under-Secretary straightforwardly said when she opened the debate, far from giving precedence to local decision taking, the Government are taking powers from local decision takers in the local education authority, removing from constituency Members of Parliament any role or ability to make representations to the Secretary of State, and placing the power in the hands of the unelected official called the adjudicator.
When the Lords debated the issue, they were especially concerned about the adjudicator's role. As a result, and because of their anxieties about the structure of the school organisation committee, they agreed that clauses 23 and 24 and schedules 4 and 5 should be removed from the Bill. The Government should listen more carefully to the message that the Lords have given them on that issue, because it shows genuine concern about the proposals.
The Minister mentioned discussions that the Government had held with both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church on the way in which the decisions would be taken. However, as I understand it, it is possible that the final decision on, for example, whether a Church school should remain open will now rest with the adjudicator. The Churches will not have a final say; the final decision as to whether a Church school will remain open or will close will remain in the hands of an unelected official, appointed by the Secretary of State, who is not from the local area and knows less about the local area than those who serve on the local education authority do.
The Lords got it right. I sincerely hope that the House will get it right tonight and support the Lords amendments. The Under-Secretary is trying to pull the

wool over the eyes of the House when she talks constantly about local decision taking. The Government make constant references to local decision taking. Their proposals in the Bill remove power from local decision takers and place them in the hands of people who are not from the local area and are not aware of local issues.
For those reasons, I trust that the House will see the importance of retaining accountability by involving elected representatives in the process of determining school organisation, and of making it possible for local interests to be well served by retaining the essential powers of decision taking on those issues within the local education authority, and then within the democratically elected processes of reference up to the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will realise how important it is that decisions are taken, not by placemen on a school organisation committee, and not by the Secretary of State's placeman in the form of the adjudicator, but by those who know the local area, know the interests of the local area and wish decisions to be taken in the interests of that local area.

Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) in support of the House of Lords and the decisions that it has taken. It is not the only time during the Bill's passage that the Government have sought to remove powers from the local decision-taking process. The most worrying aspect of that is not the increased aggregation of powers to the Secretary of State, but the loss of accountability. Not only may an unelected placeman take critical decisions of importance for local education, but that person is not answerable through the electoral process to the local population, and will not be accountable for the decisions taken.
I can well understand why Ministers may lack confidence in some Labour-controlled local education authorities taking reasonable decisions on those matters, and I suspect that that is among the things that have driven their thinking in formulating the Bill's wording. However, they are effectively removing the opportunity for local people to judge those very LEAs for the bad decisions that they may take. It is vital that the local democratic process should be able to operate in that area, and it should operate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, in co-ordination with the activities and views of the local Member of Parliament.

Mr. Don Foster: So that it is clearly on the record, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is of the opinion that the decision-taking body regarding school organisational arrangements should be the democratically elected local education authority?

Mr. Brady: I think the important thing is that local communities should run their schools and their schools' affairs. I have long supported that principle. Of course there are instances when it can be effective for decisions to be taken at an even more local level—one instance being in the case of the successful grant-maintained schools, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he asked the question. A critical point is that local parents—local people in their communities—should


decide how their schools are run, for the benefit of their children. They should have the critical say in how local schooling is organised.

Mr. Foster: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for interrupting twice, but he is now somewhat losing me in his argument. I was totally with him because he was arguing that the people who take those decisions should be democratically accountable bodies and organisations. The only such organisation that I know of that could take the decision is the LEA. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that parents should take the decision. I was not aware that it was possible to chuck parents out.

Mr. Brady: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that parents should be removed from their position on governing bodies of schools; perhaps he is now losing me in his argument. I am sure that it is a good one, but he may not be making it as well as he is accustomed to do.
We are witnessing a shift away from parents, away from local communities and away from elected politicians—local councillors and local Members of Parliament. The latter will lose the ability to represent the interests of the communities that they represent, and to represent the importance of those schools to them. That thread runs through the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State vastly increased powers over local schools and local education authorities. It will certainly have the effect of reducing the amount of local decision taking—the local input into the way in which schools and education are run.
The shift also has implications for the Church schools. The Bill has prompted the headmaster of a Roman Catholic school in my constituency to remark that the Bill would give the Secretary of State more powers over Roman Catholic schools than the trustees, the governors, the local diocese, the cardinal or even the Pope. The Roman Catholic community in my constituency is distinctly unhappy about that prospect, and is worried that the powers taken by the Secretary of State will result in a loss of choice to local communities.
Particular regard must be paid to the denominational schools and the rights of people representing those groups locally to have an input into the decision-making process. That is not to say that the Pope should not have an input, but the critical point is that the local Roman Catholic community feels that it is losing its say in the running of its schools, and fears that those schools will be less responsive to the community's needs.
The measure takes power away from local councils, the local Member of Parliament, local people and interested local groups. The adjudicator may have considerable powers and be answerable to no one except the Secretary of State. We are told that he will have powers in rural schools, but we hear little about how he will exercise his powers in relation to good, popular schools in suburban and urban areas.
In Standing Committee, I asked the Minister what consideration would be given in the school reorganisation and class sizes measures to the travel distance between schools. We await further details about what might be considered an unreasonable distance for a child to travel from one popular school to another in a suburban or urban area, and what travelling time would be considered

reasonable, given that many of us represent congested areas where people may experience problems getting their children to and from school.
There is a related issue that will no doubt arise this evening in relation to amendments concerning grammar school ballots. If there is a ballot on the future of grammar schools and an area votes to end selection, considerable reorganisation of its education system will follow. There will not be same number of schools in an area that is currently selective and decides to go comprehensive.
In my constituency, I have eight secondary schools. It is a small area, and I find it hard to believe that, if it went comprehensive, we would still have eight secondary schools. Important decisions about school reorganisation would have to be taken, should that happen. It is a distressing prospect for the communities concerned that power would not be exercised through the local decision-making process or vested in those who are accountable to local people.

Ms Estelle Morris: The world seems to be turning upside down when Conservative spokespeople defend local authorities' right to make decisions on everything that comes before them, and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats quotes the Lords in defence of democracy. If those are the best arguments that can be advanced, they have confirmed in my mind, if ever I needed confirmation, that the Government are right on the matter.
I took seriously the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) about bureaucracy. Inevitably, when any Government seek to build in checks, balances and procedures, and to ensure that the rights of the weak and of minorities are protected, one can make that sound like bureaucracy. I expect that I could make the existing system sound like a bureaucracy. When I advise the Secretary of State on school closures, there is a lengthy procedure involving objections, responses to local authority objections, local authority reflections on objections and so on. Similar comments could be made about that, but bureaucracy is not always bad. Sometimes structure and procedures exist to defend decisions.
I would never claim that what we are putting in place is not a bureaucracy. Whether it is more bureaucratic or less bureaucratic, and whether we agree or disagree about it, we shall not know until we see the system in practice.
The hon. Gentleman quoted my words at me. If we want local decision making, we must make some changes. If the Opposition do not support our motion to disagree with the Lords amendment, we shall be left with what we have, which every party is unhappy about. We cannot set up a new structure and a new system for schools and for decision making, and leave local authorities and others with the status quo. No proposal or amendment would result in a different outcome.
The choice before hon. Members tonight is to go along with the school organisation committee and the adjudicator, or to stay with what we have. Every hon. Member who has spoken has said that what we have is not good enough. We have sought to put in place a form of local decision making. It contains layers to ensure that we get the balance right and that the partners are protected.
The second point made by the hon. Member for Bath, which was also referred to by the hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Altrincham and Sale,


West (Mr. Brady), is about who has the right to take decisions. We are trying to create true partnership in the education service. People other than locally elected members of councils have a right to be part of our education system and have a vested interest in it. They are governors, they run schools, they are teachers or head teachers, they are members of diocesan boards or they are parents. They have a right to express an opinion and take part in decisions about what happens to their schools.
It is not good enough to leave such important decisions to members of local councils, although they have a large part to play. By drawing up the school organisation plan against which all recommendations will be made, they will firmly entrench their role in the process. I repeat that they will retain the power to decide on their own proposals where there are no objections.
Our proposals for school organisation committees reflect what we have tried to do over the past 18 months—that is, to anchor into the committees the partnership we need to make our schools good. They will make decisions based on proper guidelines, plans and accurate statistics. Decisions will be made in the interests of local people, not sidestepped to Whitehall through the Secretary of State. The quality of decisions will be better, because they will reflect the wishes of local people and local circumstances. Partners in the education service will know that they have had their say.
The hon. Lady spoke about the position of the Churches and referred to a letter to The Times on 24 June from Mr. John Hall, the general secretary of the board of education of the Church of England. He stated:
Such decisions will be taken by school organisation committees, on which the Churches will have a veto.
Assurances were given by my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone in another place that there will be guidelines from the Secretary of State to the adjudicators, which will make it clear that, where the relevant Church group on a school organisation committee has voted against closure of a denominational school, an adjudicator taking the final decision shall not reduce the proportion of denominational places within the authority. Such assurances in the House and in another place led the Bishop of Ripon to say on Third Reading:
I believe that the structure and character of Church schools has been both preserved and enhanced."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 73.]
Not only the Churches, but the other partners in the education service are now taking their proper place as parties to decisions about the organisation of schools in their locality.

Mrs. May: This is an important issue. The Churches have expressed concern. I acknowledge that a statement was made about the existence of a Church veto, but perhaps the Minister could explain something to me. Will she confirm that, in the voting circumstances that I described, when the Church has a veto and the matter has gone to the adjudicator, that Church will have no veto over the closure of a particular school?

Ms Morris: As I have already made clear, if the Church section on the SOC votes against the proposal, it will go to the adjudicator, and the adjudicator will not be

able to make a decision that reduces the proportion of denominational places. If the hon. Lady is not happy with that, I assure her that representatives of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are entirely happy.

6 pm

Mr. Brady: As the Minister will recall, I mentioned in Committee that St. Bede' s college in the borough of Trafford—an independent Roman Catholic grammar school—draws pupils who are funded by the local education authority, and has done so since the war. Would the power of veto prevent the local authority from removing such funded denominational places, in an independent school?

Ms Morris: We are talking about decisions relating to the framework for maintained schools, not independent schools. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the whole issue of whether local authorities can buy places in the independent sector has been dealt with on numerous occasions. It appears in other parts of the Bill, and I will not go into it at this stage.
We have made it clear that our commitment to local decision making is backed up by a structure that will deliver exactly that. I hope that the House will join me in rejecting the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 184.

Division No. 336]
[6.1 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Buck, Ms Karen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burden, Richard


Alexander, Douglas
Burgon, Colin


Allen, Graham
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Stephen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atherton, Ms Candy
Canavan, Dennis


Atkins, Charlotte
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Barron, Kevin
Casale, Roger


Battle, John
Caton, Martin


Bayley, Hugh
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beard, Nigel
Chaytor, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Church, Ms Judith


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bermingham, Gerald



Best, Harold
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clelland, David


Borrow, David
Clwyd, Ann


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradshaw, Ben
Coleman, Iain


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Colman, Tony


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Connarty, Michael



Cooper, Yvette


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Corston, Ms Jean


Browne, Desmond
Cousins, Jim






Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Iddon, Dr Brian



Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dalyell, Tam



Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dawson, Hilton
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dismore, Andrew
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Doran, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Drew, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Efford, Clive
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Etherington, Bill
Laxton, Bob


Fisher, Mark
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Follett, Barbara
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David


Foulkes, George
Love, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McAllion, John


Galbraith, Sam
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McCabe, Steve


Gardiner, Barry
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Macdonald, Calum


Gerrard, Neil
McDonnell, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McFall, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McIsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McLeish, Henry


Goggins, Paul
McNulty, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
MacShane, Denis


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mallaber, Judy


Grocott, Bruce
Mandelson, Peter


Grogan, John
Marek, Dr John


Gunnell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hain, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meale, Alan


Healey, John
Michael, Alun


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Milburn, Alan


Heppell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hesford, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoey, Kate
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Home Robertson, John
Morley, Elliot


Hood, Jimmy
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hope, Phil
Mudie, George


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris





Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Spellar, John


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Squire, Ms Rachel


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Hara, Eddie
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Olner, Bill
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pearson, Ian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pike, Peter L
Stringer, Graham


Pollard, Kerry
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Primarolo, Dawn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Timms, Stephen


Quinn, Lawrie
Tipping, Paddy


Radice, Giles
Touhig, Don


Rammell, Bill
Truswell, Paul


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rogers, Allan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooker, Jeff
Vaz, Keith


Rooney, Terry
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert N


Rowlands, Ted
Watts, David


Ruane, Chris
White, Brian


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wicks, Malcolm


Salter, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sarwar, Mohammad



Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sawford, Phil
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sheerman, Barry
Wise, Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wray, James


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Jim Dowd and



Mr. David Jamieson.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Burnett, John


Allan, Richard
Burstow, Paul


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cable, Dr Vincent


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Baker, Norman



Baldry, Tony
Chidgey, David


Ballard, Jackie
Chope, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Clappison, James


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Bercow, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Collins, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Cotter, Brian


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Brady, Graham
Curry, Rt Hon David


Brake, Tom
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Breed, Colin
Day, Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Evans, Nigel






Faber, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norman, Archie


Fearn, Ronnie
Oaten, Mark


Flight, Howard
Öpik, Lembit


Forsythe, Clifford
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Prior, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Randall, John


Fraser, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Rendel, David


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gray, James
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Green, Damian
Ruffley, David


Greenway, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Grieve, Dominic
Sanders, Adrian


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hague, Rt Hon William
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shepherd, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Harris, Dr Evan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Harvey, Nick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hawkins, Nick
Soames, Nicholas


Heald, Oliver
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard


Horam, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Steen, Anthony


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Streeter, Gary


Hunter, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Syms, Robert


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jenkin, Bernard
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Key, Robert
Townend, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tredinnick, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Trend, Michael


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tyler, Paul


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tyrie, Andrew


Leigh, Edward
Viggers, Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Wallace, James


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Walter, Robert


Lidington, David
Wardle, Charles


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Livsey, Richard
Webb, Steve


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wells, Bowen


Loughton, Tim
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Luff, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


MacKay, Andrew
Willetts, David


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Willis, Phil


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Madel, Sir David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Malins, Humfrey
Woodward, Shaun


Maples, John
Yeo, Tim


Mates, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Maude, Rt Hon Francis



May, Mrs Theresa
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Mr. Donald Gorrie and


Moore, Michael
Mr. Paul Keetch.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 35 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 35

GOVERNING BODIES

Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 31, line 22, at beginning insert
("Subject to section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body),")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 49 and the Government motions to disagree.

Mr. Byers: It is important that each school should have its own governing body. It would be inappropriate to group school governing bodies as the Lords amendments propose. We do not want to stop governing bodies co-operating with each other. Many hon. Members have infant and junior schools in their constituencies that co-operate on joint matters. There is nothing to stop them co-operating on matters to do with site maintenance or school buildings, for example. We are not impeding such beneficial co-operation, which should take place between schools on the same site.
However, each school should have its own governing body because governing bodies have a particular responsibility for raising standards. We do not want them to be distracted from that task, and their lines of accountability should not be blurred. We are concerned that grouping governing bodies will blur the necessary accountability for raising standards. Each school should have its own governing body that is accountable for its standards.

Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister refresh my memory about the situation in education action zones? Do the Government's proposals not allow education action zones to do what the amendment asks? In an education action zone, a group of schools could decide to form a mutual governing body and disapply their individual governing bodies. The Minister claims to be serious about standards. Why would that affect standards in the maintained sector, but not in education action zones? Will he clarify his thinking on that matter?

Mr. Byers: The position in education action zones is different because of the overall powers that we intend to give the zones. It is not just a question of allowing governing bodies to cede their powers to the education action zone forum, which they can do if they want. The important point is that the governing body can decide to hand over all or some of its powers to the forum. That is different from individual schools having grouped governing bodies. The education action zone will have a range of other provisions to do with disapplying national agreements on teachers' pay and conditions or the national curriculum if that is felt appropriate.
The point of the action zone is to enable all the initiatives to come together. That will not be the case with the grouping of governing bodies. Most important, the education action zone forum will be responsible for laying


down the standards and targets to be achieved by schools in a zone. We are not comparing like with like. The grouping of school governing bodies is separate from the powers that we intend to give schools and governing bodies in education action zones.
It is true, though, that we intend to give new powers to governing bodies. It is because we are doing so, particularly in the raising of standards, that we feel that each school should have its own governing body. There will be a new duty on governors to run the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement. Governing bodies will need to set targets for their schools and agree them with the local education authority for inclusion in the education development plan. Obviously, a governing body will have to have due regard to the new code of practice that we want to be established between LEAs and individual schools. All those new responsibilities can be effectively discharged only if a single governing body is responsible for driving up standards in the way that we expect.
In addition, it is important that parents should have a greater say on school governing bodies, which is why we have provided for greater emphasis on and a greater role for parents in the new membership of governing bodies. Our concern is that grouping governing bodies will reduce the number, and therefore dilute the proportion, of parents serving on them. It is not in the interests of parents to group governing bodies as the House of Lords has suggested.
It is not just the Government who feel that it is appropriate to have a single governing body for each school. The National Association of Head Teachers, which I think most hon. Members would agree has a legitimate view to express on this item, fully supports the Government's proposals to reject the proposal to group governing bodies. It understands that, if one governing body is responsible for two schools and two head teachers, there would be confusion about which head teacher is responsible. The House should disagree with the Lords amendment in order to cut through that uncertainty and such blurred lines of accountability.
Governors have a key role to play in the standards agenda. That is why, for the first time this year, we have provided funds to enable governors to attend literacy training courses so that they know how teachers should be delivering the literacy strategy in primary schools when it starts in September. We also intend to ensure that, next year, when we launch the numeracy strategy, governors will be able to take part in training.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister clarify the type of circumstances in which he would envisage that the view of a single governing body on how to raise standards would be overridden by a local education authority?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman tries to take me down an avenue that is not incorporated in the amendments. Provided that it is in order, I shall try to address the issue to which he has referred.
In the context of the education development plan, a school and the LEA will have to agree targets. If there is disagreement, it will be registered in the plan and sent to the Secretary of State, who can then agree either with the school or with the LEA. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to reply to that intervention.
The Government take the view that it is important to have a single governing body for each school. Grouping governing bodies may be convenient for matters that can be dealt with in co-operation, such as those concerning buildings and premises and site management, but such matters are not key functions of a school governing body. The key task and role of a governing body at the present time must be to raise standards in the schools for which they have responsibility. That will occur only if each school has its own governing body. It is for those reasons that I ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I can scarcely claim to rise in the House as an expert. Anybody who knows me well appreciates that I am an expert in nothing whatever. However, I am an enthusiast for certain things, and one of them is individual success stories in my constituency—not least that of St. Alphege Church of England school.
While I have the opportunity of discussing the school, which provides nursery, infant and junior education, I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Brian Curran, the head teacher of the junior school, and to my very good friend Councillor Ron Herd, who has been the chairman of governors for a little while and a governor for some time longer. I also express my appreciation to Baroness Seccombe, who successfully moved the amendment in another place.
I pay tribute to the staff, parents and friends of St. Alphege school, and particularly to Mrs. Elaine Winterbottom, the headmistress of the infant school, who is shortly to retire after 25 years as headmistress. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to extend that tribute.
Mrs. Winterbottom trained as a nursery and infant school teacher at Kingston-upon-Hull training college, and taught at schools in Lancashire and Hull before moving to Solihull. She has been teaching for 30 years in the borough of Solihull, beginning with one year as a home tutor and three years at Ulverley infant school. Twenty-six years ago, she was appointed deputy head of St. Alphege Church of England junior and infant school, and one year later became head teacher of the infant school, when the junior school moved to its present site in Widney Manor road. Those 26 years were quite interesting, because, at material times, I was then a relatively new borough councillor in Solihull—as indeed was the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is not in his place; he is about his silent duties in connection with this debate.
The infant school rapidly expanded from three to six classes and opened one of the first purpose-built nursery units in the borough. As head of a Church school, it is not surprising that Elaine Winterbottom has been particularly involved in the standing advisory committee on religious education—SACRE. In 1989, she became a member of the Church of England committee on SACRE and was involved in writing the handbook for religious education in infant and junior schools. Under her leadership, St. Alphege infant school has developed strong links with parents, the community and the Church.
Parental involvement in the school has thrived with the formation of the Friends of St. Alphege Schools and the growth of parental support in the classroom. Regular events involve the wider community, such as the very


popular songs of praise for local elderly people and the St. Alphege festival. Mrs. Winterbottom retires with the utmost good wishes and gratitude of the people of Solihull.
Turning to the merits of this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that that graceless intervention by Labour Members does not signal any detraction from the tribute that I have paid.
St. Alphege is a Church of England aided school which has a single governing body. As far as we can tell, in one form or another, there have been sole administrators of the parish school since Elizabethan times—certainly since 1862. At various stages, there were separate schools for boys and girls, but on other dates they were amalgamated. In 1973, the original one-form entry site became too small for an expansion to two-form entry, and the junior department moved to another site half a mile away. The walk through parkland between the two sites is one of the most pleasant in Solihull. Through all those changes, one governing body has represented continuity and an attachment to St. Alphege parish church.
That governing body wishes to remain one single body, for what we consider to be one school—albeit on two sites, with two heads—for the following reasons. The first reason is to retain continuity, and the second is that any child given entry at the nursery stage is given the right of attendance through to the end of junior school; the admission rules are administered as for one school.
Thirdly, actions in the nursery and infant schools affect the junior school. For instance, because of the enormous parental pressure for entry to the school, and the need to accommodate classes of 30, the lower school is considering expanding to take a three-form entry. That means that the junior school will have to follow suit.
Fourthly, two school governing bodies, although one might contain the same foundation governors, would inevitably drift apart. Two bodies would increase administration difficulties and costs. St. Alphege is the school of one parish; we wish it to be administered as one.
Fifthly, the governors of an aided school are responsible for 15 per cent. of certain costs, and as a single body we administer moneys that we have accrued for that purpose. Sixthly, and not least, there is, I am happy to say, one parent-teacher "friends" organisation.
6.30 pm
Their Lordships, in their wisdom, were addressed on the matter by Lady Seccombe, and as we are now allowed to quote from the Hansard record of the proceedings of another place, I shall dip briefly into her speech. She reminded their Lordships:
the school has been administered by a single governing body, probably since Elizabethan times…The school caters for infants and junior pupils and, because of its success, outgrew its site. It was therefore forced into locating the junior department to a site half a mile away. In reality it continues as one school on two sites. Continuity has been an essential ingredient throughout the years and its attachment to the parish church has been a much-valued focal point in the area. Further changes are possible as there is parental pressure for a three-form entry".
I am not surprised by that, because St. Alphege is one of the most successful schools in Solihull, which has many successful schools.
Baroness Seccombe continued:
The chairman of the governors tells me that the board is deeply concerned about the Bill as it would disallow the way that it has organised the school for centuries. The governors fear that with two boards administration costs would escalate and there would be duplications in many areas. They also worry that there could be conflict and that the two boards would drift apart.
There are other matters which concern them. At present any child who enters at nursery stage is given the right of admission through to the end of junior school. Certain monies administered by the governors for capital projects at both schools are administered as one. They fear that they would have to set up a foundation to cater for such funds".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 833–34.]
I appreciate the fact that you have been most indulgent to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to pay a tribute to a greatly respected lady from my constituency. You have also enabled me to talk in some detail about the schools group of St. Alphege. I shall finish by saying that St. Alphege school in Solihull has got it right, and their Lordships got it right too. Even now, the Government could get it right, and if they had the grace to reconsider, I would heap praises on their head.

Mr. Phil Willis: After today's performance, it would be interesting to hear a Conservative heaping praises on the Government's head. We wait to hear that. I do not wish to pay tribute to the lady that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) mentioned, although it is good to hear tributes paid in the House to former colleagues and to teachers who have given their lives to education, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's tribute will be well received.
We support the way in which the Government are investing powers in governing bodies and giving them, together with heads, the ability to run schools efficiently and effectively, making decisions as locally and as swiftly as possible. Indeed, we do not think that the exception to the rule will be needed in many cases. It amazes us that on such a small detail the Government wish to force the issue and insist that every school have an individual governing body. I do not believe that that is necessary.
The vast majority of schools would want their own single governing body anyway, because they would want the special relationship with the parents and the community—and, indeed, with their local education authority representatives, when they turn up. To force that on everybody seems a little over the top, and goes against the thrust of the rest of the Government's policy, which is based on standards, not structures. Here we are told that the structures come first and the standards will follow later.
I must admit that in my time in teaching I have had only one experience of being on a joint governing body. When I first moved to Leeds, the high schools were all grouped together with a single governing body. That system was an utter disaster. All that happened was that, once a term, the home economics departments, as they were then called, vied with each other to provide the best tea for the governors. Little business was done, except that a report was presented. The whole thing was not only a sham but a shambles.
I am not arguing for the Lords amendment on the basis of having had any good personal experience of joint governing bodies. However, the hon. Member for Solihull


has given us an excellent example of a single governing body, operating for what are now two schools, working effectively.

Mrs. Browning: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, may I declare an interest as the president of the Institute of Home Economics? I hope that, with his passing reference to the excellent teas that the home economics departments provided, he will not leave the House with the impression that those departments are somehow ancillary to the teaching in our schools. We need more home economics teachers, and a greater appreciation of their work.

Mr. Willis: When the hon. Lady left the Opposition Front Bench, it was a great loss to the House. Her intervention is most timely. It was a disgrace that the home economics departments should have had to make the tea for the governors. They had far more important things to do, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would accept that their job should have been in the home economics classrooms—but I digress, down the path along which the hon. Lady has led me.
Although I had a poor experience of a joint governing body, I can see occasions when it would be advantageous to have a single governing body overseeing a group of schools. The hon. Member for Solihull has given us an example of a junior school and an infant school with a long tradition, now on different sites but with a real sense of association.
There are many examples. For instance, many Church schools throughout the country have expanded, and are now faced with the same scenario as the hon. Member for Solihull described. Of course, there are also junior and infant schools on the same site that were built and intended to operate as separate schools, yet have come together to form a single governing body because that is the most effective and efficient way to run the organisation.
All that we are arguing for, and all that their Lordships were arguing for, is not to defeat the Government and create a crisis—heavens above, I hope that this does not become a constitutional crisis. We are simply saying that there are exceptions, and that it is important to allow flexibility.
In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) mentioned education action zones. She was right. The Minister will know that the Liberal Democrats supported the introduction of those zones. We feel that they have much to offer, provided that they are successful. A new way of looking at school organisation and bringing schools together with the business community is an exciting experiment, which we hope will work.
If it is a good idea to have a single governing body for a group of schools in an education action zone, it cannot be argued that it is not a good idea to have a junior and an infant school continuing with a single governing body on the same site. That is illogical. Furthermore, the Minister said that that would dilute the parental or community involvement. That is exactly what is happening with a single governing body in an education action zone, where sometimes there are as many as 20 schools. That may be a price worth paying in this brave new world of moving away from traditional structures. Clearly, that issue must be examined.
I wish to refer to beacon schools. On Monday, I went to the beacon school in my constituency, St. Aidan's—one of the finest schools I have ever had the good fortune to be involved with. I talked to the head, the staff and the governors about the other schools that the school will support, and it was exciting to see how the new system would work on the ground. However, it was clear then—it is clear again today—that there may be a requirement for those governing bodies to work together. It might be perceivable that it would be worth while to have a single governing body—particularly, as in this case, where one of the schools that St. Aidan's is going to work with is another Church school. I can see advantages in that. If we throw out the Lords amendment, we will cut off a route—that is all.
The vast majority of schools will want a single governing body, and that is right and proper. There will be few exceptions to that rule, but let us leave in the Bill an opportunity for that to happen.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I am privileged to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) who, to those of us who are junior Members of the House, gave an excellent example of how a Member of Parliament can show up a vital issue in his own constituency. It is a timely reminder of the vital link between Members of Parliament and our constituencies—one which we would be well advised to retain in the future.
The Education Select Committee recently commenced a study into head teachers. One of the ideas that we intended to look at was whether there could be one head teacher for a number of schools: the corollary of that would be one governing body for a number of schools. It is frankly perverse that the Government oppose the Lords amendment while Labour Members have actively toyed with the revolutionary concept—some are rather in favour of it—of one head for a number of schools. There are a few cases where that happens already. I believe that there are a cluster of schools in Dorset where one head has overall control. I am not aware of whether there is one governing body that might be affected by the changes that the Government are seeking to put back in the Bill.
The thrust of the Government's approach to the amendment is typical of their approach almost from day one of the Bill. It is the approach of a party that is hungry for power. Once it acquires that power, it becomes consumed with the determination to accrue as much of it as possible for the centre and for the Departments, and to take away as much discretion as possible from every other aspect of the education system—particularly from the local education authorities.
It should not be a matter for central Government whether a number of governing bodies that are responsible for more than one school exist in a particular education authority. That should not detain the House, but it does when the Government elevate it above its normal importance.
Recently, as part of the study into head teachers, the Education Select Committee visited Zurich. We were told by the canton of Zurich that, in Switzerland, there are 26 cantons, so there are 26 education systems. One can imagine the brainstorm that the Minister would have if he had to contemplate 26 different education systems in this country, yet for the people of Switzerland, that is par for


the course—it is part of their way of life. Out of that flexibility, they have managed to develop a fine education system.
One of the features of the Swiss education system is that the country does not have schools at all—it has "school houses". The canton of Zurich does not, at present, have head teachers, but those concerned were talking about proposals to introduce them and to move towards the UK model, which was developed very much by the last Government. We asked how big the schools would be. We were told that that would depend on how many school houses they decided to include under the umbrella of one school.
6.45 pm
Clearly, a flexibility and imagination exist there that are totally lacking in the Department for Education and Employment, under the auspices of the Minister. We are on rigid tramlines in this country, where the idea that there might be some joint enterprise on two sites is dismissed out of hand, it would appear from the Minister's comments.
The other aspect of the Swiss system which illuminates this debate is that the local community is in charge of all the school houses. It would make far more sense if there were to be a local power to determine whether a governing body should have authority over a group of schools, rather than over just one. It would make far more sense if that decision were downstreamed to the local council or to the local parish council, where the needs of the particular area and the history of a school—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull—could illuminate the decision to be made by local people who understood the circumstances.
Later this evening, we will have a debate about the partnership between the independent and private sectors, when we will hear just how little—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about a future debate. I should say that Lords amendments are always narrow. He must address his remarks to the Lords amendment, and not to Switzerland or any other part of the world.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am bound—without going beyond the thrust of the Lords amendment—to mention the research by the Committee into the school system in the United States, where there are also schools on more than one site run by a single governing body. The other day, we heard from—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow that. Lords amendments are even tighter than our own amendments. We cannot go wide of them. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Lords amendment. If he is finding difficulty, that is fine—he can sit down and let another hon. Member speak.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, as always, your advice is both pertinent and brief. I shall certainly take it before too long.
When I was a local councillor in Paddington, one of the schools in my area was an amalgam of two secondary schools, and it had reinvented the American system of the lower high and upper high school. I heard from the headmaster the other day about how successful that has been for the two schools, and how much it has helped to develop the full potential of each pupil.
What would happen if a local education authority wanted, for sound local reasons, to run two schools as a lower and a higher secondary school, rather than in parallel, and, to make the scheme work, determined that it would make perfect sense for only one governing body to oversee the entire administration of the two sites? I should be grateful if the Minister clarified that issue before we vote on this important issue.

Mr. John Hayes: Given your advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief and address my remarks strictly to the amendment. When he was speaking, I was reminded of that old maxim that St. Aubyn's speech is to the amendments what London is to Paddington, which I hope was apposite given that Paddington was mentioned.
The Minister has made four points of false logic. The first concerns the Government's version of the classic dilemma between control and diversity. This lies at the heart of the amendments. They want central control to maintain coherent, consistent standards through what the Minister has called a single line of accountability school governance, but that contradicts the desire for diversity and for a flexible system that respects local traditions and needs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) pointed out. He said that he spoke as an expert on nothing; if that were so—given his wide experience and expertise, which is so greatly admired by hon. Members on both sides of the House—I should hate to think where I count on a scale of expertise from one to 100.
The second point of false logic, which was drawn to our attention by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), is the contradiction between the policy on schools in education action zones and the policy on other schools. The Government are arguing that a single governing body should be responsible for one school but that the opposite should apply in education action zones, where one governing body will be answerable for several schools gathered together.
The third problem relates to the notion that the Government's proposals will create a simpler system. Several schools may have been closely knit or even seamless in their practical organisation for decades or even centuries, when they have been united by a single governing body. Under the Bill, those schools will have to create several governing bodies, so to argue that that is clearer and more straightforward is nonsense.
The fourth and most profound criticism of the proposals is that the Government are claiming that they want to simplify the system of accountability, despite the fact that, under the Bill, accountability will be shared among governing bodies, education action zones, local education authorities and the Secretary of State. The Bill will create several points of power and accountability, leaving the management of education in a state of confusion. If the


Government reject the amendments, they will cut across the thrust of the Bill; I believe that the House should support the flexibility that the amendments would allow.

Mrs. May: I commend the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I regret the fact that cackles of laughter greeted his tribute to St. Alphege school, as he was genuinely supporting a member of staff who has clearly contributed a great deal to the life of the local community.

Mr. Byers: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, as I want to put on the record the fact that the disagreement, which will be recorded in Hansard, had nothing whatever to do with Mrs. Winterbottom and the excellent service that she has given over many years to St. Alphege; the disagreement was about the amendment.

Mrs. May: That was not how it seemed at the time, although I am sure that we are all grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position.
The Government's attitude to the issue of single governing bodies was summed up in the Minister's response to the pertinent intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). She reminded him that, elsewhere in the Bill, the Government had accepted the concept of grouped governing bodies in the form of the education action forum in an education action zone. He tried valiantly to defend the Government's position by suggesting that there was a difference between governing bodies coming together in an education action forum and the grouped governing bodies that are the subject of the amendments but, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, he failed to show that there were any real differences.
That betrayed the Government's attitude to the Lords amendments, which is plain mean. We are considering the amendments because the example of St. Alphege was raised in another place by Baroness Seccombe, who spoke eloquently of the excellent education provided in that school, which has a tradition of having a single governing body. That arrangement has worked well, resulting in a popular school that produces excellent results, and the governors and all those involved with the school want that tradition to continue. The Government, however, are saying, "No. We know best."
We have heard today about how the Government believe in the importance of local decision making. However, in the case of St. Alphege, although everyone in the local community is saying that the school should be allowed to continue to have a single governing body, the Minister is saying no.

Mr. Byers: I wonder whether the hon. Lady, as the Opposition spokesman, can answer this simple question: if grouped governing bodies are so important, why has not the House of Lords insisted that foundation schools be allowed to have them?

Mrs. May: In considering the issue, the House of Lords had very much in mind the example of the school that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull mentioned. The Lords wanted to give such schools the opportunity to have

single governing bodies. Is the Minister now suggesting that he is willing to take the matter further and allow all types of school to have grouped governing bodies?

Mr. Byers: The Government disagree with the principle of grouped governing bodies. As the hon. Lady has made a very strong case in favour of grouping governing bodies, will she explain why the amendments that she supports would not extend that advantage to foundation schools?

Mrs. May: If the Minister thinks that I have made a good case in favour of grouped governing bodies, he should join us in voting to agree to the Lords amendments.
The Government are being mean in trying to prevent schools such as St. Alphege from having a single governing body, although that arrangement has been shown to work extremely well. They have deployed two arguments against single governing bodies, both in another place and in the House of Commons. The first was that, in grouping governing bodies, one would have to reduce the number of parental representatives. We are all in favour of parents taking an active role in schools, and especially on governing bodies. The Conservative Government put a significant emphasis on parental choice and the role of parents in decision taking in their local schools. The issue of the number of governors from any particular grouping does not preclude the Government from accepting the concept of a single governing body.
Baroness Blackstone said:
Governing bodies are there to promote higher standards and provide accountability for the school's performance. They should be looking at the strategic direction that the school should be taking."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 835.]
That was given as a reason for not having a single governing body. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said, and as Baroness Seccombe said in the other place, the need for strategic direction is precisely one of the reasons why the governing body of St. Alphege Church of England school wants to remain single. Its members believe that the school on two sites is more properly guided by a single body that can take into account issues of concern to both sites.
7 pm
The Government merely pretend to be interested in flexibility and local decision taking. I am very disappointed by what the Minister said, because the press announcements issued immediately after the Government's defeat in the Lords implied that they would reconsider. As we have seen all too often, when a microphone or press release is put in front of Ministers in the current Government, they say something entirely different from what they do in the Chamber.
The Government are being just plain mean. They should accept their own comments on flexibility and local decision taking, and allow governing bodies to decide that, where it works in local circumstances, local people should be allowed to have a single governing body.

Mr. Byers: This may become known as the St. Alphege group of amendments. As Minister for School Standards, I join the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in offering congratulations and thanks to


Mrs. Winterbottom, who has given many years of loyal and devoted service. She is a credit to her profession, and I am sure that many thousands of children have benefited from her endeavours.
I assure the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that we considered the consequences of the Lords amendment, and rejected it as wrong-headed and foolish. It fails to recognise the important role that school governors play in raising standards: not the old approach that governing bodies used to have, but the new approach outlined in the Bill, giving every governing body the responsibility to raise standards. The Bill introduces a range of new duties for governing bodies: to monitor the performance of head teachers; to respond to a warning notice from a local education authority; and to agree their aspect of the education development plan.
We believe that the lines of accountability will be blurred if there is not a single governing body for each single school. That is why we intend to resist the Lords amendment.

Mr. Hayes: Surely the Minister would not argue that the new responsibilities are greater than the extra responsibilities produced by the changes to the structure of governing bodies in 1986 or, indeed, the implications of local management of schools in 1988. Surely those were greater transfers of power to governing bodies, yet the situation as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) prevailed in those periods of change and worked very well.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman reveals the Conservative party's great weakness on education. The powers given to governing bodies under Conservative legislation were all about structure and did not give responsibility for standards. The Bill is about driving up standards, which is why we need a single governing body for each school. There can be co-operation where there is a tradition of it, and there can be joint working between individual governing bodies, but there is no doubt in the Government's mind that it is wholly appropriate that each school should have its own governing body. There should be no flexibility to fail, and under our proposals that will not be the case. Accordingly, I must ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendments.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 167.

Division No. 337]
[7.5 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Alexander, Douglas
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Allen, Graham
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benton, Joe


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Best, Harold


Atherton, Ms Candy
Betts, Clive


Atkins, Charlotte
Blackman, Liz


Banks, Tony
Blears, Ms Hazel


Barron, Kevin
Borrow, David


Battle, John
Bradley, Keith (Withington)





Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Follett, Barbara


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foulkes, George


Browne, Desmond
Fyfe, Maria


Buck, Ms Karen
Galbraith, Sam


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Burgon, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godsiff, Roger


Canavan, Dennis
Goggins, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hesford, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coleman, Iain
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Home Robertson, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hope, Phil


Corston, Ms Jean
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cranston, Ross
Howells, Dr Kim


Crausby, David
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cummings, John
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hurst, Alan



Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Ingram, Adam


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darvill, Keith



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)



Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dismore, Andrew
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dobbin, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drew, David
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kemp, Fraser


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Etherington, Bill
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fisher, Mark
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kingham, Ms Tess


Flynn, Paul
Ladyman, Dr Stephen






Laxton, Bob
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Leslie, Christopher
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Levitt, Tom
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rogers, Allan


Linton, Martin
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lock, David
Rowlands, Ted


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Steve
Salter, Martin


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonnell, John
Sawford, Phil


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Snape, Peter


Mallaber, Judy
Soley, Clive


Mandelson, Peter
Spellar, John


Marek, Dr John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Meale, Alan
Stringer, Graham


Michael, Alun
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Alan



Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Timms, Stephen


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Tipping, Paddy


Morley, Elliot
Touhig, Don


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Truswell, Paul


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Mudie, George
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Vis, Dr Rudi


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Hara, Eddie
Watts, David


Olner, Bill
White, Brian


Pearson, Ian
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pollard, Kerry



Pope, Greg
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pound, Stephen
Winnick, David


Powell, Sir Raymond
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wise, Audrey


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray, James


Prosser, Gwyn
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Quinn, Lawrie
Wyatt, Derek


Radice, Giles



Rammell, Bill
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. David Jamieson and



Mr. Jim Dowd.


NOES


Allan, Richard
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Ballard, Jackie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beggs, Roy


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Baker, Norman
Bercow, John





Beresford, Sir Paul
Kirkwood, Archy


Body, Sir Richard
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Boswell, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Letwin, Oliver


Brady, Graham
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brake, Tom
Lidington, David


Brand, Dr Peter
Livsey, Richard


Brazier, Julian
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Breed, Colin
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Loughton, Tim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Luff, Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Burnett, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burstow, Paul
McLoughlin, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Madel, Sir David


Cable, Dr Vincent
Malins, Humfrey


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Maples, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Chidgey, David
May, Mrs Theresa


Chope, Christopher
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Clappison, James
Moore, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Moss, Malcolm


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Norman, Archie


Colvin, Michael
Oaten, Mark


Cotter, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Cran, James
Ottaway, Richard


Curry, Rt Hon David
Paice, James


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Paterson, Owen


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Prior, David


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Randall, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rendel, David


Evans, Nigel
Robathan, Andrew


Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fabricant, Michael
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fearn, Ronnie
Ruffley, David


Flight, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Forsythe, Clifford
Sanders, Adrian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sayeed, Jonathan


Foster, Don (Bath)
Shepherd, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fraser, Christopher
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gibb, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Gorrie, Donald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Steen, Anthony


Green, Damian
Stunell, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Harris, Dr Evan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harvey, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hayes, John
Tredinnick, David


Heald, Oliver
Trend, Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tyler, Paul


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tyrie, Andrew


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Walter, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Webb, Steve


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Wells, Bowen


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Keetch, Paul
Wilkinson, John


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Willetts, David






Willis, Phil
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Nigel Waterson and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 49 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 34, line 24, at end insert
("; and
(c) the aims and values of the school, and the ways in which the school intends to promote the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of its pupils.")

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may consider the Government amendment thereto, Lords amendment No. 52 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.

Ms Morris: We take seriously schools' responsibilities for spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Our motion to disagree with amendment No. 52, on which the Government were defeated in the other place, does not mean that we do not share the view that those are proper responsibilities for schools. We want schools to carry out those responsibilities as well as they can.
As well as disagreeing to amendment No. 52, we want to amend amendment No. 50, on which we were defeated in the other place. The Government originally resisted Baroness Young's amendments because they were too detailed and prescriptive a package. We did not dispute the content or her wish that schools should address the issues concerned. However, the amendments placed demands on schools. We have considered her comments carefully, and have examined her amendments. We offer a compromise that acknowledges the importance to parents of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development—matters which parents have a right to discuss. However, other significant concerns deserve equal treatment. We want to remove from governing bodies onerous requirements that run counter to our policy of lifting unnecessary burdens and reducing bureaucracy.
We propose to extend the list of items that parents are able to discuss under clause 42. Our proposal includes Baroness Young's intended issues, but the clause would go wider to cover pupils' entire educational experience including standards of achievement and the schools' contribution to their behaviour, discipline and general well-being. We want to signal that those are matters of importance to parents. We hope to encourage more parents to go to annual meetings that are often poorly attended. The list of matters to be discussed includes matters on which parents rightly take a view.
We propose to remove clause 43, which places extensive duties on governing bodies. That removes the requirement that governing bodies should maintain a statement of the aims of the school's secular curriculum. In sum, we are removing one amendment, but incorporating the provisions of the second into a wider amendment of our own. We value these matters highly. We have already announced that we have asked the

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to consider that area for our review of the national curriculum for 2000, and to suggest how children's moral, cultural, spiritual and social development and work on citizenship can be more firmly placed within the curriculum and given the support it has lacked hitherto.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I agree with what Lady Young said about these important amendments when they gained substantial support in the other place after a wide-ranging debate. I welcome the Government's movement and their willingness to advance in a spirit of compromise. I welcome their acceptance of the importance of using annual meetings for a discussion between governors and parents of the aims and values of a school and how it will promote development of the whole child, including his or her spiritual and moral development.
In their compromise, the Government acknowledge that such development is closely linked to education for adult life and citizenship. However, a close reading of Lady Young's amendment and of the Government's amendment to it reveals little difference between them, unless it is that the Government want to water down Lady Young's proposal. I cannot believe that that is the case, and I hope that it is not.
The Minister for School Standards knows, following meetings with me in his office, that I am passionately interested in these matters. I have two children at a Church primary school, and the values of that school are important to its successful development and to propelling it to being one of the best in the country, irrespective of the fact that a large proportion of its pupils come from backgrounds in which they speak foreign languages.
Research shows that schools that are explicit and self-conscious about spiritual and moral development achieve higher educational standards than those that are not. Every recent Ofsted report tells us that the superiority of Church schools is noticeable in their effectiveness as communities, in their quality and in their spiritual life. It is clear that Church schools, which make a habit of promoting spiritual and moral development, do better not only in promoting those values, but in developing educational values, too. I am worried that the Government's focus on cognitive development—numeracy and literacy in particular—takes some emphasis away from spiritual and moral development of pupils. The Government will deny that, and will rightly argue that there should be a balance between educational skills and wider moral and spiritual values. We need them to acknowledge the importance of moral and spiritual values.
A school framework for moral, spiritual, social and cultural development, such as that being developed by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, is a significant and underrated means of increasing schools' effectiveness and raising standards. Pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is closely linked with both the espoused values and the lived values of their schools.
It would have been more consistent to retain the wording of Lady Young's amendment, and to add subsequent amendments to bring in citizenship, educational achievement and pupils' behaviour. We are


debating a narrow difference in wording, and I should like to know why Lady Young's amendment could not be left alone.

Mr. Willis: There is a difficulty with the means of assessing the whole business of moral development. Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he explain how spiritual, moral and social development would be assessed and monitored under Lady Young's amendment?

Mr. Leigh: I shall come to that later, because these matters were widely discussed in the other place. It is true that Ofsted found that this is a confused and difficult area. These are philosophical matters rather than simple skills, such as numeracy or literacy, which can be measured. The fact that there are difficulties should not prevent us from trying to promote moral and spiritual development. It is an important point. I may accept that what I propose is wrong and what the hon. Gentleman says is right. If so, we would have had a useful debate.
7.30 pm
The Secretary of State is simply trying to overturn Lords amendment No. 52. The other place suggests that there should be not only an annual meeting, where the way in which moral and spiritual development was being promoted by the school could be discussed, but an annual report. The Government's rejection of that proposal is short-sighted and wrong, or reactionary. It partly relates to what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was saying. The perceived difficulties with targets for monitoring spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, and anxieties about teacher work load, may mean that this important matter will continue to be neglected by schools because there will be no requirement to mention it in their annual report.
Ofsted inspection reports show that the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils and schools is a weak and confused area. That is surely all the more reason for schools to be encouraged to be explicit about developing policies, targets and means of assessment. The many examples of good practice and the lead given by the voluntary aided sector show that it is possible to develop specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-related targets in this area, which the Government are developing through the QCA. The obvious connection between a school's vision and values and educational achievement make this an area that needs as much attention and resourcing as any other. We should not wait for the next tragedy, such as the recent murder of a headmaster in London, to stir us into giving consistent high priority to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of young people.
Literacy and numeracy can provide basic skills—personal, social, educational and citizenship—as part of the curriculum. That can provide a great deal, but they all need to cohere with an explicit whole-school framework that provides the why as distinct from the what and the how of education. In opposing the Lords amendment and thus seeking to wipe it off the Bill, the Government are

emphasising the what and the how at the expense of the why. Those are not my words or concepts. They come from the QCA's draft guidance in November 1997 which stated:
The promotion of pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development provides the 'why' (as opposed to the 'what' and the 'how') of education: it is an essential ingredient of school success.
I am worried that we will get loose talk based on Professor Barber's speech to the Secondary Heads Association. He highlighted the moral agenda in education, but believed that the ethic based on religion or communism should be replaced by one based on global citizenship. I do not agree. Being a citizen of the world is far too woolly a concept and does not provide the rigorous education that I believe in. That is my personal opinion. If other people want to promote that sort of ethic and tell our children that we are members of the global community, that is fair enough, but I think that things go much deeper. However, at least Professor Barber is trying to address the issues.
I want to deal briefly with the debate in the other place, because it is important that hon. Members appreciate that there was a high-quality, wide-ranging debate. Members in the other place, from a wide range of backgrounds, debated the matter raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The Lord Bishop of Ripon said:
spiritual development, along with moral, social and cultural development, is not confined to schools but is a part of family and community life. Equally, these are not separate aspects of education to be placed in compartments. They are a dimension of all education.
The bishop said that moral and spiritual development is part of family life. There were interventions from atheists who said, "That's all very well. You may be religious, but we do not want to force religion down the throats of all our children." I accept that. Not all schools are Church schools, and children should not be forced to be little Christians or little anythings. However, they are entitled to as wide ranging an education as possible, and one that delves into areas other than strictly educational ones.
In reply to people such as Lord Dormand of Easington, who said that he was an atheist and could not see how we could simply promote religious values, there were several interesting interventions. Lord Dearing, who was not stressing the religious aspects of moral and spiritual education, said:
I recall using phrases like 'to go beyond', and making it broader than spiritual values based on religion. We wanted to incorporate a sense of wonder; a sense of awe; beauty; respect for one's fellow human beings; and appreciation of courage, both physical and moral.
The Earl of Halsbury said:
If the noble Lord, Lord Dormand requires a definition of 'spirituality', I can give him…one. If you wish to be a better person than you are, or if you feel ashamed of something which you have done, or admire beautiful music, or admire courage and courageous action in other people, or admire the way in which they attend to the sick and the invalid, and so on, that is a spiritual exercise. That is the only definition that one can give."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 477–83.]
People have been talking about these matters for thousands of years. Xenophon asked a contemporary Persian educationist what the Persians taught children. He was told that they were taught to ride hard, shoot straight and speak the truth. That was what moral and spiritual


education was all about in Persia some 2,000 years ago. We have a more up-to-date report in the QCA's recently published advice on the scope of such education. There is a strong case for recognising the central place of citizenship, personal, social and health education and spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in the education of all young people by introducing more explicit provision into the statutory framework. That is all I am asking for.
Whether hon. Members have religious convictions or are atheists, we all believe that education goes far wider than simply instilling strictly educational requirements in children. All studies and all our experience tell us that, when schools try to involve the family and the local community in the wider discussion of moral and spiritual development, it creates successful schools. I am sure that the Government accept that. I believe that the Minister for School Standards, for whom I have much respect, is personally committed to such a concept. I hope that the Government's treatment of the Lords amendments does not water down the excellent work of the other place.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I should like to clarify how Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 50 will be interpreted. I hope that it can be interpreted in such a way that the school's annual parents meetings could include discussion of the school as a collective rather than just individual pupils. The wording of the amendment is good on the various aspects of the development of individuals, but the school is a community and it exists within the wider community.
I hope that the phrase from the Lords amendment that the Government have retained—
the aims and values of the school"—
will cover discussion of how the school operates as a community and matters such as how young people can help each other, how they can deal with bullying and how the school can make a contribution to the wider community. It would be helpful if the Minister could make it clear that such discussion, as well as discussion of how the school helps each pupil to develop, is part of what the Government intend.

Mr. Peter Luff: I wish to make a practical point about the amendments. I do not wish to go over the ground laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), but I agreed with every word he said—the House would do well to listen to him—and that includes his admiration for the Minister.
The substantive Government amendment is an improvement on the original Lords amendment. I thank the Minister and the Government for the amendment. I draw attention to the word "citizenship". One of the most important tasks that our schools are fitted and equipped to do is to help our children develop their sense of citizenship. We desperately need people to have a sense of citizenship if we are to engage them in the political process, apart from anything else. The House probably has a vested interest in agreeing with that.
As I understand it, in essence the Government's position on the amendments is that they are happy to have the issues discussed at meetings that parents will attend, but not to have them put in writing. Presumably, although

the Lords amendment does not make it clear, it would be perfectly acceptable to put the expression of spiritual, moral, social and cultural values in the school's prospectus. I do not see that a new document would be required. The expression could be part of the current document to comply with the Lords amendment.
I have two conflicting views that I must express to the House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough about the issues in the amendments, but I know that teachers are concerned that too much responsibility is dumped on them by the rest of society. They are asked to pick up the pieces of all sorts of problems that are the fault of bad parenting or whatever. I know that they feel that burden heavily, and we must think carefully before we accept the amendments.
I respect the Minister's desire to resist imposing additional burdens on schools. As I understand it, the motion to disagree with Lords amendment No. 52 is effectively a deregulatory measure; the Government are worried about the regulatory burden that the Lords amendment may impose. Obviously, Conservative Members have sympathy with that proposition, but it is incontestable that the best schools have the clearest view of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development that they should offer children. I suspect that they also have a clear view about preparing people for adult life and developing citizenship; that they want to boast about their educational achievements; and that the governing body is anxious to promote good behaviour and discipline. The best schools do those things already, and, as my hon. Friend said, they are often, but by no means always, denominational schools.
7.45 pm
We know that spiritual and moral development is easy when the leadership in a school is good. At my grammar school—a subject to which we may return later—such matters were very much at the forefront of the leadership of the school team. They flowed naturally into the ethos of the school. To have a debate about the issues at an annual meeting, or to put them in the prospectus, would have been easy for that school.
I heard the Minister say that including in annual school meetings the issues set out in the amendment would encourage attendance at those meetings. I wish that that were the case. Sadly, I suspect that schools that already have these matters best developed in their curriculum attract the best attendance at their annual meetings and are already prepared to discuss them, without legislation obliging them to do so. I fear that, even at those schools, one group will be debarred from such meetings. Working parents often find it difficult to juggle their conflicting responsibilities and get to meetings. I declare a personal interest, because the obligations imposed on me by the House mean that I can never attend meetings at my daughter's and my son's schools. The Government are behaving strangely in accepting and even going beyond the principle of Lady Young's amendment, but not daring to have it put in writing.
I have been reading the Department for Education and Employment's mission statement in the comprehensive spending review. I have done a rough count of the words and it is just a little over 200. Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the CSR or the educational policies, aims and objectives of the Government, the statement


expresses rather well what the Department wants to do. It explains the means by which the Department intends to fulfil its objectives, and sets out the Department's targets—all in 200 words.
I bet that the process of developing that written statement of the purpose was important within the Department. I bet that it focused minds clearly. That is what the process of discussion about the aims and objectives of the school will do in the governing body. Discussion has that purpose, too, but it also sends a signal to parents of children at the school or those who aspire to send their children to that school. That is important. Aspiring parents will not attend annual meetings; they will have only the prospectus and perhaps informal chats with the teaching staff to rely on.
I cannot understand the Government's opposition to a written statement. It would not take for ever to write 200 words. It would not be a huge regulatory burden. I should have thought that it would comply with the spirit of the Lords amendment. I see no earthly reason why the Government should resist it. The Government get two cheers for what they have done so far. They will get a third if they drop their opposition to a written statement.

Mr. Howard Flight: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said. For many years, I have been a governor of a school that has formulated just such a policy statement, which is in the prospectus and which the governing body reviews. There is no problem with it. The pupils of the school are a broad range of Anglican, Catholic, Muslim and many other religions, but the policy statement of the school is a Christian one. If parents are to have choice, they ought to know from the prospectus precisely the policy of the governing body on important matters that go beyond pure academic education to allow them to assess the schools for which they want to enter their children.
Given the supportive spirit of the Government, I cannot understand what objection they have to Lords amendment No. 52. The amendment does not say that the policy statement has to be Christian. It does not define what is wanted in a narrow way. It is surely part of the responsibility of the governing body, in reflecting its community, to focus on such matters. I ask the Government to reconsider whether they have any basis of opposition to Lords amendment No. 52. I should have thought that it was precisely what we should like to see operate in all our schools.

Mrs. May: I commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). They showed how serious we are about ensuring that schools take into account and promote the moral, spiritual, social and cultural development of their pupils. We place high importance on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire made well the point that the Government seem to be half doing one thing and not doing the other. It appears from their amendment to Lords amendment No. 50 that they have accepted that the moral, spiritual, social and cultural development of the school and the pupils is important, yet they will not go that bit further and say that the school shall be required to make a statement to that effect

and provide that information in writing to parents. The Minister will have to work hard to explain why, having accepted the principle of the importance of those aspects of pupils' development within the school and of their educational life, the Government are not prepared to say why parents should be denied the opportunity to have it set out in a written statement or report.
We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the need for moral and spiritual development and have been willing to go some way towards accepting the principle of the amendments moved in the other place by Lady Young. However, the noble Lady's amendments made it clear that the school should put those values in writing and ensure that parents had access to that document. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs said, those who do not attend school annual general meetings of the governing body—we all know that the number of those who do attend tends to be small—need to have something in writing. That way, parents will know where the school stands on an important issue.

Ms Estelle Morris: I want to establish at the outset my belief that, for too long, the part of the curriculum that deals with moral, spiritual, social and cultural development has been ignored. I also want to emphasise the agreement in the House on this subject, because we are under an obligation to show leadership in this matter.
I should not like anyone who reads the debate to think that there is not strong agreement in the House that the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils is an issue which schools ought to address. I know that there is a difference of opinion about how that should be done and about how far we should go, but it is right that we should give a clear lead and not allow anybody outside who does not think that that is an important role for schools to quote disagreement in the House as a reason for not taking action. I gather from the nods on the Opposition Benches opposite—it is difficult for anyone reading Hansard to detect nods of agreement—that we are broadly agreed on that point.
The Government have already taken action, and I shall go over the steps we have taken. We have ensured that the next review of the national curriculum will require schools to teach spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and citizenship. I was grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). It is one of the Secretary of State's main concerns that we should do better in training our young people to be active participants in their community and in democracy and politics when they grow up. In our first year, we have steered the review of the national curriculum in that direction. We have to remember that, when changes have been made and there is a proper framework for this part of the curriculum in schools, which is properly inspected by Ofsted, those will act as levers, mechanisms and messages to the school that the subject should be valued.
The problem is that, although the subject is the only part of the curriculum that appears in primary legislation—everything else in the national curriculum appears in secondary legislation—and so already has a place in English education law, it is ignored because of the lack of other forms of pressure on teachers and schools. All the additional levers that Governments can use—the review of the national curriculum, the work that


Ofsted can do and the curriculum now being set down for initial teacher training—will add to the force of what the previous Government put in primary legislation and ensure that it is carried into practice.
I do not disagree with the Opposition on any of those points. The disagreement, if disagreement there is, surrounds how far we go in making demands on schools and governing bodies. There is a danger that, every time a Government think that something is important, they make their feelings clear by putting a responsibility on someone else to do something. There are times when that is right, but when the all those demands combine, the result is sometimes onerous responsibilities and demands on head teachers, governing bodies and teachers which do not allow them the flexibility they need to run schools. We are giving a clear message and ensuring that it is reflected in the curriculum, properly reported to parents in their child's end-of-term report, and properly inspected. Those are the levers that achieve our objective.
Let me explain why we disagree with Lords amendment No. 52. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a legitimate point about setting targets. For the area of the curriculum that we are discussing, and not for many other important areas, we want to set targets that
describe what means of assessment will be used to monitor this development; and…report on the achievement or otherwise of those targets.
I accept the importance of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils as part of the curriculum, but I accept the importance of many other parts of the curriculum as well—the importance of physical education, music, drama, numeracy, physics and so on. If we set down in primary legislation the same demands on governing bodies for everything we thought important, we would create a straitjacket for schools, and they would spend their time abiding by the letter of the law, but not thinking about how to do their job and deliver the goods for children.
We desire not to weaken the overall message. If the hon. Member for Gainsborough wants to hear that assurance, I am happy to give it. However, like the other work that we are doing in the Department, the Bill is designed to rationalise the requirements on schools in primary legislation.
I know that the issue is close to the hon. Gentleman's heart, and I take it seriously. I know that he cherishes the subject and thinks that schools need to teach it and to teach it well, but that can be multiplied for almost every area of knowledge. We have to take into account whether schools and governing bodies can manage the requirements we impose.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts my assurance that it is better to set in place the other mechanisms that I have described, which have more to do with the normal day-to-day management of schools and will be incorporated better in the annual ebbs and flows of school activity, than to insist on a bolt-on extra that has to be done for reports and school meetings. We do not want someone cobbling together some sort of report when the annual meeting comes along. We want to get this part of the curriculum embedded in day-to-day life. It should be something that schools do because it is important and as

natural as teaching literacy and numeracy. That is our aim, and that is why we choose to work via a review of the national curriculum, monitoring and reporting to parents.
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's argument about the diversity that will always exist in people's ideas of what values and morals underpin their community. One of the things I have learnt since becoming a Member of Parliament and having had the opportunity to visit schools in my constituency and beyond is that there is a commonality of values in Church schools that holds the community and the school together. I attribute the success of many Church schools to those common values—that binding together by shared values is incredibly important. I want all school communities to feel that sense of belonging through having shared values; I want pupils to understand those values and abide by them because it is right to do so and wrong to disobey them.
We asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to produce a framework, which has already been produced, so that schools have a structure to adopt when drawing up their own values system. Such a structure is already available to Church schools—the values system is given in the religion followed by that school; but in non-Church schools the task can be more challenging. All schools need a system of common values. I should be happy to let the hon. Member for Gainsborough have a copy of the document on values now being piloted by the QCA. We hope that, by the time the review of the national curriculum takes place, the important aspect of the curriculum and of pupil development that we have been discussing will have become embedded in our school communities. I hope that the House accepts my assurances.

Lords amendment and Government amendment thereto agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 51 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 52 disagreed to.

Clause 45

DETERMINATION OF LEAs GENERAL SCHOOLS BUDGET AND AGGREGATED SCHOOLS BUDGET

Lords amendment: No. 53, in page 37, line 2, leave out (" "general") and insert (" "local")

8 pm

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 70, 146, 149, 158, 160, 165, 175, 180, 259, 260, 404, 405 and 407.

Mr. Byers: The amendments are grouped under the heading "Local management of schools", although they are narrowly drawn in the issues that they address, which relate to the delegation of budgets to individual schools. They fall into three broad categories. The first category of amendments relates to the names to be used in the new procedure that the Government want to adopt in delegating budgets to individual schools. They replace the general schools budget and the aggregated schools budget—most people could not understand what those terms meant, and the definitions and descriptions added to the confusion—with the local schools budget and the


individual schools budget. That makes the distinction between the local education authority's responsibility, which will be the local schools budget, and the element that will be devolved to schools, which will be the individual schools budget.
The second category of amendments reflects the debate in Committee and confirms that the financial arrangements will start in the new financial year—April 1990. I mean 1999; my numeracy is letting me down again.

Mr. Damian Green: Never mind, it will soon be the reshuffle.

Mr. Byers: I hope so.
The new framework will start in September 1999. The amendments will put in place the procedures that will be needed to cover the interval between April and September. They particularly reflect the concerns expressed by the grant-maintained schools sector about its position in the new arrangements.
The third category contains technical amendments. The important one allows local education authorities to reclaim value added tax. It will apply also to VAT paid by the grant-maintained sector and former grant-maintained schools, which already receive that benefit.
I hope that I have adequately explained the consequences of the Lords amendments, which make considerable sense. I ask the House to agree with the Lords in these amendments.

Mrs. May: I shall speak only briefly to the amendments, because, as the Minister has made clear, they partly reflect an earlier debate on this issue. They also put in place the technical changes for the local management of schools scheme, which the Government proposed in May in their "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" paper, by replacing the general schools budget and the aggregated schools budget with the local schools budget and the individual schools budget.
The Minister's explanation seemed to suggest that suddenly a light will shine and that changing the terminology will make the definitions extremely easy to understand. We know that reference has been made outside the Chamber to the wonderful new world in which schools will have 100 per cent. of their budgets delegated to them. In this last opportunity to consider this aspect of the Bill, it is important to put on record that the reality is far from the rhetoric. The names of the budgets will be changed, but far from schools having 100 per cent. of the budget delegated to them, they will receive 100 per cent. of what is left of the budget after the local education authority has top-sliced however much it wants to remove in certain categories.
Far from making matters simpler, there are four categories for which the local education authority will be able to retain blocks of expenditure: strategic management, access, LEA support for school improvement and special educational expenditure. Missing from the consultation document, which I fear will cause concern when the proposals are put into practice, are the definitions of those blocks of expenditure that the LEA will be able to retain before delegating the individual schools budget.

Mr. Hayes: My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters because of her background in

local education authorities. The critical issue, and the point that she is seeking to make, is that there is a great difference between the potential schools budget and the amount that is devolved to schools. It would be more honest of the Government to publish those precise figures, so that people would know the potential amount and the amount that is actually devolved.

Mrs. May: My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right, although by referring to me as his right hon. Friend, he erroneously promoted me. It is important to enable people to know what amounts could have been delegated to the schools and what amounts are held back by the local education authority, so that they can make judgments about how the LEA is managing its education budget. I hope that the Minister will respond specifically to that point when he sums up.
I shall not go into the details of all the amendments in the group. I simply wanted to point out that far from all schools suddenly having a delegated budget that is much larger and gives them much more flexibility than before, the position will be exactly the same—the local education authority will be able to top-slice funds out of the overall education budget and determine the sum that will be delegated to schools.
We certainly welcome opportunities for schools to manage their own budgets. The previous Conservative Government introduced such measures. I have always been in favour of as much decision making and flexibility over budgets as possible being at local school level. However, the Government are not introducing such flexibility, but setting up, in the four blocks of expenditure that the LEAs can retain, categories that I fear LEAs will be able to manipulate to determine how much they will delegate to schools. The proposals will give LEAs the flexibility not to pass money down to schools if they so wish. That is a worrying proposal, and its real impact will be far from the Government's rhetoric.

Mr. Willis: I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has a great deal of experience from her local government background. However, we get far too hung up on what percentage of budgets should be delegated to schools. The issue is the quality of service that schools and the local education authorities provide, and the resources that they each receive to enable them to do so. Before I spoke, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) reminded me that we want the LEAs and the schools each to receive 100 per cent. of their funding so that they can all carry out their allotted tasks.
I was intrigued, before I came to the debate, to read the Minister's letter of 9 February on the percentage of budgets delegated to schools by LEAs. I picked out two LEAs: North Yorkshire, which is the excellent LEA for my constituency, and Leeds, which was my LEA when I was a practising headteacher just over a year ago. Leeds delegated 93.9 per cent. of its budget and was one of the table's top seven or eight authorities. It is a very good, innovative, Labour-controlled local education authority and has decided to delegate services such as music and special needs education.
I then looked at North Yorkshire. That LEA is in the top five virtually every year in terms of GCSE, A-level and standard assessment tests results, truancy rates and


any other measure that one would care to name. However, it comes very low down the table, delegating only 90.5 per cent. of its budget in 1997–98. That is because it is a different sort of authority; it has a different organisation. The LEA has a large rural catchment area and many small rural primary schools that depend on it to provide services. It does so in agreement, not in competition, with those schools.
Baroness Blatch asked a question of the Secretary of State, which appeared in the House of Lords Hansardof 15 June 1998 at column 2161. In replying, Baroness Blackstone made it clear that consultation funding could create exactly the same problem. The hon. Member for Maidenhead has asked what services the LEA is expected to deliver and what budget it will receive, and what schools are expected to deliver and what their budgets will be. We do not want to spend a great deal of time arguing about the delegation issue. That argument has been won: it is acknowledged that schools require as much flexibility and as many resources delegated to them as possible. The whole House accepts that fundamental point.
Equally, LEAs have some important duties to perform and it is essential that we make their responsibilities clear as soon as possible. We must give them a clear budget that is open and transparent, and then we shall see which LEAs and schools deliver good services. I hope that the debate about delegation will then cease.

Mr. Byers: I shall reply briefly to this debate. I state at the outset that the whole purpose of the "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" document, on which we are consulting, is to provide opportunities and real choices to individual schools through the delegation of even greater sums to individual school level. We believe that the prime responsibility for raising standards rests with individual schools, and particularly in the relationship that is established between a teacher and a class of pupils. That is the reality of the situation. If we are to raise standards, a school-based initiative will be necessary.
That is why the "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" document seeks to devolve as much as possible to individual school level. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is absolutely right: the consultation document refers to four areas remaining the responsibility of individual local education authorities—strategic management, access, school improvements and special educational provision. However, there is clarity in that.
On completion of the consultation exercise, we shall make clear what we expect will fall within those four categories. In that way, the confusion and the funding fog that currently exists in relation to the delegation of budgets will be lifted. Local education authorities will know—and people and schools will see—what they can retain at the centre and what they will be required to delegate to school level.
The Bill provides an additional power that did not exist previously under legislation introduced by the Conservatives: we will have the power to cap spending levels. If a local education authority abuses its position and holds back unfairly money that should go to

individual schools, as a result of the measures in the Bill, we shall have the power to cap that LEA's spending in each of the four blocks referred to in the "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" consultation document.
We are sending a message to every local education authority: yes, LEAs need the resources to promote high standards in schools and we are giving them that welcome new duty. However, they cannot abuse that position by withholding more money than is necessary for the delivery of those four specific areas. That is how we shall push more money to school level, which will allow schools to raise standards and provide a higher quality of education.
8.15 pm
That consultation is continuing, and it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcome. In considering the responses that we have received, we shall seek to provide greater opportunities and choice for schools. They should have the choice to select local education authority provision when it is of good quality and is attractive to them. However, if a school decides that what is on offer is not appropriate, it should have the opportunity to look elsewhere. That is what we intend to do through our "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" document. The Lords amendment reinforces that point, and I invite the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 70 agreed to.

Clause 59

STAFF AT FOUNDATION OR VOLUNTARY SCHOOL WITH RELIGIOUS CHARACTER

Lords amendment: No. 71, in page 46, line 33, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (3A)")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 72, 73, 261 to 278, 353 and 389.

Mr. Byers: These amendments fall into a number of groups. Amendments in the first group are rather technical; they ensure that registration under the General Teaching Council is effective and that an individual can be removed from the register when he or she has been dismissed from a school.
The other group of amendments is particularly important as it reflects consultations that the Government have had with the Church education authorities—in particular, on head teacher appointments at voluntary-controlled and foundation schools with a religious character, the religious opinions of staff, the advisory rights of diocesan authorities on the staffing of schools in their area, head teacher appointments at Roman Catholic and religious order schools, and selection procedures involving the whole governing body at some voluntary-aided schools.
The aim of the amendments, which were carried in the House of Lords, respects but does not go beyond the 1944 settlement. The amendments basically roll forward


the historic agreement reached in 1944 between the then Government and the Church education authorities. We seek to do no more than was provided in the Education Act 1944 on the religious character and the staffing of schools. We use the opportunity to update and clarify some of the wording, and we ensure that existing powers in articles of government of certain classes of school are carried forward into the new framework.
The amendments recognise and meet the Churches' concerns about staffing. They reflect the Government's belief that Church schools make a valuable contribution to the education of our children, and our belief that it is right and proper that those schools should be allowed to carry safeguards into the new framework.
The amendments agreed in the House of Lords do precisely that. They ensure that there is a roll forward into the new framework which protects the interests of Church schools, and which allows them to retain their religious character and distinctive ethos. Church schools are popular with parents, and I believe that many hon. Members present tonight understand why.
The amendments reflect the important role that Church schools play. They protect and preserve their position in relation to staffing matters.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 72 to 84 agreed to.

Clause 66

DUTY TO SECURE DUE PROVISION OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Lords amendment: No. 85, in page 51, line 35, leave out
("to be provided at the school")
and insert
(", or may be, required to be provided at the school in accordance with Schedule 19 (or, as the case may be, each such religion or religious denomination)")

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 86, 87, 154, 155, 157, 159, 162, 169 and 282 to 284.

Ms Morris: The Bill makes no substantive changes to the law on religious education and collective worship. By and large, the Bill is worded in such a way that it will be in order to apply the provisions of the existing law to the new school framework. Many of the amendments in the group are minor Government amendments.
I draw the attention of the House to what is probably the most significant amendment in the group, amendment No. 284. It was introduced in response to concern expressed by the Church of England, and I believe it to be non-contentious. It clarifies the statutory position on the nature of collective worship in foundation and voluntary schools with a religious character. The amendment confirms that worship in such schools, and in voluntary schools without a religious character, should be in accordance with any provisions in the trust deed, as is widely accepted and the current position.
However, the amendment then specifies that, for schools with a religious character which have no provision in their trust deed, the worship should be in

accordance with the tenets and practices of the school's designated religion or denomination, as set out in the order required by clause 66. That brings the treatment of collective worship in schools into line with the treatment of religious education. I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 86 and 87 agreed to.

Clause 71

TRANSFER OF LAND ON APPOINTED DAY

Lords amendment: No. 88, in page 55, line 35, after ("land") insert
("and certain rights and liabilities")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 89, 90, 92, 144, 148, 164, 194 to 197, 209 to 212, 234, 256 to 258, 285 to 326, 350, 352, 388 and 411.

Mr. Byers: This is another highly technical group of amendments. They concern the provision and disposal of school premises, a variety of different situations in which such provision and disposal might occur, and the respective rights and responsibilities of the interested parties. The amendments are detailed. I believe that they were agreed without great controversy in the House of Lords.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 91 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 92 agreed to [Special Entry].

Clause 78

MODIFICATION OF PROVISIONS MAKING GOVERNORS OF FOUNDATION OR VOLUNTARY SCHOOL EX OFFICIO TRUSTEES

Lords amendment: No. 93, in page 58, line 30, leave out
("and those appointed by the local education authority")
and insert—
("(b) those appointed by the local education authority, and
(c) any co-opted governor nominated by a minor authority.")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 147, 236, 241 to 243, 245 to 254, 361 and 392.

Mr. Byers: I get to move all the most exciting groups of amendments. This group is another largely technical one, this time concerned with matters related to school governance. The amendments cover, for example, provision for transitional arrangements, for reconstituting governing bodies to enable them to operate from an appointed day, transitional regulations to allow for certain governors to remain in post even when they do not comply with the requirements of the new definition,


and removing reference to instruments and articles of government contained in previous legislation. They were agreed without any great controversy in another place.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 79

CODE OF PRACTICE

Lords amendment: No. 94, in page 59, line 17, after ("(1)") insert—
("(a) make separate provision (by means of separate codes of practice) in relation to different functions under this Chapter of the bodies and persons mentioned in that subsection;
(b)")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 95 to 107, 109, 110, 328 to 330 and 333 to 349.

Mr. Byers: Once again, many of the amendments in the group are technical, but I bring to the attention of the House one major new provision, which goes beyond the purely technical and has potentially significant implications.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill contains a new provision for dealing locally with admissions. It sets up an adjudicator who will decide between admissions authorities if there is any conflict about the way in which admissions procedures locally are to work. That will operate under the new code of practice, which will be submitted to the House some time in the new calendar year for debate and approval.
As the Bill stood when it went to the House of Lords, the only body that could refer a matter to do with admissions to the adjudicator was an admissions authority. When we originally drew up the Bill, I thought that that would be sufficient to protect the interests, in particular, of parents in the local area. If the responsibility rested with an admissions authority, the views and needs of parents could be reflected.
However, as a result of consultation and representations made, it became clear that parents should be given some mechanism and some route whereby an admissions policy affecting them locally might be referred for consideration by the adjudicator. The Bill as it went to the House of Lords did not provide that opportunity for parents to refer a matter to the adjudicator for consideration. With hindsight, I must say that that was an omission. The Lords agreed with a Government amendment that provides the power to parents to refer the admissions policies as they apply locally to—

Mrs. Browning: I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, which sounds like a good addition to the Bill, but what will the mechanism be? Parents often have rights in legislation, but they are not always informed of their rights. If parents are to be given the right to refer an admissions decision to an adjudicator, can the Minister

assure the House that, when the LEA or other body informs the parents of that admissions decision, it will be incumbent on that body to inform the parents in the same document of their right to appeal to an adjudicator, so that that information is fairly disseminated?

Mr. Byers: I am not unsympathetic to that approach, but I want to go away and consider the mechanics whereby we can ensure that parents locally are made aware of the new power that we intend to give them through these amendments. I am sympathetic to the hon. Lady's point, but I am not sure whether it should be the responsibility of the admissions authority or whether there may be some other way in which parents can be made aware of the new power. I shall go away and consider what might be the best way forward.

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. When people apply for a benefit or grant through the Benefits Agency and their application is turned down, it is usual for them to be informed at that time of their right of appeal and the mechanism and time scale involved. The formula that is already used by other Departments could be used by LEAs.

Mr. Byers: As the hon. Lady will know, it must be in the guidance on procedures for Ministers that we never agree automatically to something that is raised in debate, even though it may seem to have great merit. I have a great deal of sympathy with the overall approach of informing parents of their right. I want to reflect on whether the mechanism that the hon. Lady outlined would be the best. I shall give proper consideration to how we might make the information available to parents so that they can exercise a new right.
That is the main item of substance in this group of Lords amendments. The remainder are effectively technical amendments. I commend them to the House, including the amendment giving parents a new power to refer admissions policies to the adjudicator. I ask the House to agree with the Lords amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 95 to 110 agreed to.

Clause 96

PERMITTED SELECTION: PUPIL BANDING

Lords amendment: No. 111, in page 73, line 22, leave out ("approved or otherwise determined") and insert
("have fallen to be implemented")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 112 to 114.

Mr. Byers: There will probably be great interest in this group of technical amendments, which is headed "Partial selection" in the marshalled amendments before the House.
Amendment No. 111 simplifies the reference to the way in which proposals under schedule 6 may fall to be implemented. The amendments to clause 97 and 98 make


it clear that, unless otherwise specified, the provisions in clauses 84 and 85 will apply to any selective admissions arrangements permitted under clauses 94 to 97. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will know precisely what those clauses contain, so I am confident that they will agree with me that we should agree with the Lords in the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 112 to 114 agreed to.

Clause 99

DESIGNATION OF GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 115, in page 74, line 41, leave out (", 101 and") and insert ("to")

Mr. Byers: That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 116 to 128 and 374.

Mr. Byers: The amendments fall into three broad categories. Amendments Nos. 115, 117, 122 to 124 and 374 are technical and tidying-up amendments.
Two groups of amendments have greater substance. Amendments Nos. 116, 118 to 120, 125, 126 and 128 would give effect to the recommendations that were made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the House of Lords. That Committee recommended that certain measures should be written into the Bill.
The parents who will be eligible to a vote in a petition or to take part in a ballot and the fact that there should be 20 per cent. or more of eligible parents at the relevant school signing a petition were matters that the Committee thought should be recorded in the Bill. The amendments meet the Committee's recommendations. We were pleased to be able to agree with those recommendations.
The second significant group consists of amendments Nos. 121 and 127. Those relate to what are known as the gagging provisions in the Bill. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know that the Government were concerned that local education authorities and school governing bodies might abuse their positions, particularly in relation to the use of public money, in arguing for or against one side of the argument in relation to the retention of selective schools.
In Committee, the Government stuck to their original view, which was that it would be far better to impose a blanket ban on governing bodies and local education authorities embarking on any campaigning issue. A number of hon. Members who are present this evening, including me, engaged in a heated debate about whether that was the right way in which to proceed. As always, the Government proved to be a listening Government. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition began his listening tour yesterday, and I wish him well; but this Government have been listening for a long time. As a result of their listening, they felt that this part of the Bill should be changed.
Opposition Members asked why governing bodies should be restricted. If governing bodies felt strongly about an issue, should they not be allowed to articulate their view? Some of my hon. Friends feel that local

education authorities should be able to articulate particular views as well. The Government have decided—and their decision is reflected in the Lords amendments—that it is appropriate for local education authorities, and school governing bodies, to be able to express their views on important issues. However, we continue to claim that they should not be allowed to use public money to pursue a partial argument. That is where we draw the line.
If a school governing body holds a fete or summer fair to raise money to argue for the retention of the grammar school system, that is perfectly right and proper; if a local education authority seeks to raise money, it will probably be in difficulties. I am not sure that such action is within LEAs' powers. No doubt, in due course, there will be interesting legal arguments about whether it would be ultra vires. In any event, it would not be possible to stop an elected member of a local authority from campaigning openly in favour of a specific argument; but we are drawing a line in the sand in regard to the use of public money.
The Lords amendments permit public bodies—grammar school governing bodies, secondary modern school governing bodies and local education authorities, if they wish—to argue their case. We do not wish to restrict their activities in that regard; what we are saying is that they should not be able to use public money to support their campaigns.
I think that the amendments strike the right balance between the two competing arguments. Having considered the issue, I recommend that the House agree with the House of Lords.

Mr. Green: As reshuffle fever grips the Government Benches, we should all be aware that each occasion on which we are privileged to hear the Minister speak on the Bill may be the last time that we hear him speak from the Front Bench. Let me begin by thanking him for the small mercy of the slight move that he has made on the gagging provisions. I am relieved to discover that the Government have not yet got into the mode of trying to dictate what school fetes should raise money for, although it must be said that that is only a small step forward.
The Lords amendments relate to one of the more distasteful parts of the Bill—and, as evidenced by the number of amendments that the Government have been forced to table in the House of Lords, one of the more intrinsically incoherent parts. The plethora of amendments to this part of the Bill demonstrates the difficulty of turning blind prejudice into good legislation. The Minister referred to the view of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee that more details of the ballot should be included in the Bill, and that less should be left in regulations. The Committee is right, of course, and we should be grateful for the moves that have been made; but I hope that the Minister will explain what coherent principles he is using to decide what should be in the Bill and what should be left in regulations.
That question is particularly important in this context. Apart from the over-arching point about the House's ability to scrutinise legislation properly, there is the question of the time scale. Given the point at which the consultation period will end, we assume that the regulations will be published in the recess. I hope that the Minister will cast some light on that.
I know that several of my hon. Friends have specific constituency points to make, so I shall be fairly brief. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that


parents throughout the country are worried about the clauses to which the amendments refer, and in many respects they are right to feel betrayed.
Any number of quotes from the current Prime Minister before the election illustrate the point. During the by-election campaign in Wirral, South, he said:
A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee.
Parents of children in grammar schools throughout the country will know how much that guarantee is worth when they see the Bill. Even more strongly, he said in Birmingham in April 1997:
Our task is not to change anything that works or any good school that is doing well. Our challenge is to change what is not working in the education system.
The amendments are designed to make it easy to change something that is working well in the education system, so they are unnecessary and damaging.
The amendments show how difficult it has been for the Government to enforce the betrayals that the Prime Minister is inflicting on those parents. Amendment No. 126 refers to parents eligible to vote. I was fascinated to receive a written answer confirming what I had suspected—that each child can have an unlimited number of parents eligible to petition and vote. That shows the arcane lengths to which the Bill going. One might naturally think that any child could have a maximum of two parents.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have simply rolled forward the definition of eligible parents contained in the Conservatives' legislation on grant-maintained school ballots and petitions. That is the definition that has traditionally been used.

Mr. Green: That had to be on a narrower basis, because it affected parents at individual schools rather than across local education authorities. I do not remember the Labour party welcoming those ballots, so I am not sure that the Minister's argument washes.
Many people will find the 20 per cent. rule peculiar. The Government have decided that, when they are dealing with matters that they care about, such as trade unions, 40 per cent. should be the appropriate hurdle. For schools, which they do not care about, they have decided that 20 per cent. should be the appropriate hurdle. Parents across the country will observe the difference and note where the Government's real interests lie.
The Minister will be aware that various local Labour parties are trying to organise campaigns against grammar schools. He told the Social Market Foundation on 1 July this year:
One of our priorities over the next few months is to identify new ways in which excellent schools can simply be allowed to get on with what they do well without undue distraction.
I commend those words. The Minister is right and he should put his words into action by encouraging his hon. Friends and many Labour councillors throughout the country not to try to cause undue distractions to good schools by campaigning for their destruction.
The amendments say nothing about the cost of the ballots. Ministers refuse to answer the question when they are asked. One assumes that many thousands of pounds will be spent. I am sure that the House would be grateful to hear any figures that the Minister has. Whatever the cost, it is inconceivable that the money available for education is best used by spending it on ballots.
The wasted money is bad enough, but that is not all that will be diverted from better purposes. A great deal of energy will also be expended. I have two excellent grammar schools in my constituency—Highworth school for girls and Norton Knatchbull school for boys. They are already having to look over their shoulders at what may be coming. Inevitably, the energy of senior staff, other staff and those parents who are most involved is being distracted from their normal work of helping the schools towards thinking about what is likely to happen in the ballots. The net result of that uncertainty will be a reduction in the amount of creative time and energy devoted to improving the education of children. I cannot believe that the Minister thinks such ballots are a sensible use of time.

Mr. Brady: Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on the effect that the uncertainty is having on parents who are contemplating the best schools for their children? The proposals are already having the perverse effect of pushing parents towards independent schools rather than excellent grammar and secondary schools which they might otherwise choose.

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend, who has considerable expertise, makes an extremely good point. I cannot believe that it is one of the Government's intentions to drive more children into the independent sector. They must know that that is one of the possible effects of the policy. Although we on the Opposition Benches have no problem with that, because we believe in parental choice, ideologically the Government are shooting themselves in the foot.
Amendment No. 115 refers to clause 99, which states that a grammar school is a school that selects
all (or substantially all) of its pupils…by reference to general ability".
It is interesting that, although the Government have quite sensibly taken up the previous Government's idea that schools should be allowed to select certain skills—a percentage of pupils can be selected for sporting or artistic ability—they are still hostile to the idea of selection on academic ability. As the Minister will know, there are those who argue that part of the problem faced by sports and arts colleges is that they are not allowed greater specialism and a higher percentage of selection. Had grammar schools not provided a good service for centuries, it would have been typical of the new Labour Government—indeed, I commend the idea to the Minister—to suggest that specialist academic colleges would be a good idea, too. The proposed policy does not even fit their own purported ideology. Trying to damage grammar schools in such a way is atavistic, and unworthy of many of the other things that the Minister is trying to achieve.

Mrs. Browning: Are we not debating the fact that the Government and the Minister are philosophically opposed to education by selection—they have made that very


clear—but realise that it would be extremely unpopular among parents whose children attend grammar schools or live in an area where they hope that their children will attend one? They have contrived a balloting system, and the Minister has made an announcement about not using public money, which is right and proper.
Having set a policy of hostility towards grammar schools, despite their excellence, particularly in academic subjects, the Government are standing back, wringing their hands saying, "It's nothing to do with us, guy." In practice, the trade unions will be the ones who find the money to drive anti-grammar school campaigns. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) laughs; he has good reason to do so. He knows that, in every ballot on an application for a grant-maintained school, he and his chums from the trade unions found the wherewithal and the ability to run a no campaign. The Minister knows that; the Government know it. They will let the trade unions do their dirty work for them.

Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right. The Government are trying to hide behind others in the campaign because they put out so much soft soap before the election, saying that good schools would not be threatened. We said that they would be, and we have been proved right. Everything that was said before the election, by everyone from the Prime Minister downwards, is proved to have been a deceit on the public.
We have spoken of the chaos that will be caused by the ballot process, and is already being caused by the uncertainty. However, much more chaos and expense will, of course, be caused by the consequence of any changes. One key point that the House and people outside will need to realise is that the chaos, the expense and the disruption of children's vital years in education will not be confined to the grammar schools but will spread to all the schools in the areas concerned.
I have in different parts of my constituency both extremely good grammar schools and excellent comprehensive schools. The disruption caused by any change to the grammar schools would affect schools right across the board. Damage would be caused to the education of the many, not the few.

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about disruption, and of course it will last longer than the duration of the ballots. Relationships will be strained in perpetuity. Imagine the situation during a ballot, with school against school, parent against parent and community against community—hardly a policy to bind together communities and local areas. The disruption will go on in perpetuity and damage the education opportunities of countless children.

Mr. Green: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, may I observe that we are straying rather wide of the amendments before us. Will he return to them, please?

Mr. Green: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The amendments are problematic because, at the margins of the Government's policy, the category of people affected is wider than existing parents and pupils.

The amendments deal with the question of who is eligible to vote in the ballots, and the Government are having that difficulty precisely because it is not only the children, parents and governors from the grammar schools who will be affected but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) pointed out, the whole community.
That is one reason why the Government have had such difficulty and have had to bring before the House amendments made in another place. It is regrettable that they are betraying their pre-election promises by introducing those clauses and the amendments to them, because putting good schools under threat is no way to raise standards in all schools. At best, the Government are causing short-term disruption and, at worst, they are engaging in long-term vandalism. However, I am sure that, if and when ballots take place, parents will show more common sense than Ministers have.

Mr. Robert Key: I support the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), our Front-Bench spokesman. First, I must declare an interest, in that both my daughters attended the excellent South Wilts grammar school for girls in Salisbury. I put on record the thanks of my wife and myself, as well as those of our children, for that superb education, which was both academic and rounded, and included an education through the community in south Wiltshire. They started in the village school, they progressed to Wilton middle school, and they have both now gone to university.
I wish also to put on record my thanks to the Minister of State for the courteous way in which he received a delegation that I brought to see him earlier in the year, which included the heads of South Wilts grammar school for girls and of Bishop Wordsworth's school, together with their respective chairmen of governors.
The Minister received us with courtesy, and indeed with spirit. He was challenging in the way in which he listened to our arguments, and then suggested that there might be even better ways in which we could raise educational standards in my ancient cathedral city and the other part of south Wiltshire that I represent. We came away most encouraged, in the knowledge that the Minister and his officials had listened carefully, and we hoped that we had influenced some of the decisions that he would take—although we were a little disappointed in that respect.
On many occasions over many years, I have made my views clear on behalf of my constituents, and that was but the latest occasion on which I did so. I might not have tried to catch your eye this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had it not been for the bizarre remarks by Baroness Blackstone when the Bill was considered in another place. She said:
this amendment appears to be about fairness and democracy, but I have a suspicion that it is about tailoring the electorate in order to achieve a particular result.
If ever logic were stood on its head by anyone, it was by the noble Baroness. She added that a feeder school was
defined as a school which has sent five or more pupils in total to the relevant grammar school or schools over the previous three years. That definition was arrived at after consultation with a number of grammar schools."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 54.]


I bet that all those schools asked her to do exactly the opposite of what the Government propose.
While the Bill is making progress—thanks to the enormous majority that we face—the local Labour party in Salisbury is going around stirring up apathy in a community where education is regarded as an important piece of our social fabric; where the old warfare between comprehensive and grammar schools was, fortunately, ended 15 years ago; where education is so important that, in considering reorganisation to meet the needs of modern Britain, the secondary modern schools are proposing a sixth form; where the comprehensive school has excellent academic results; and where the grammar schools are part of a wide and varied educational fabric.
The clauses and the amendments are crucial to the argument. I am disappointed that the Government have not listened to the representations, and seem to be intent on fighting a thoroughly old-fashioned class war, concerned with the battles of so many years ago. It is in sorrow rather than anger that I have made my few remarks in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will have second thoughts.

9 pm

Mr. Brady: Ministers know that I have a strong interest in the future of the remaining grammar schools, and of the secondary moderns which are their companions. Ministers have doubtless followed my comments on previous occasions.
I am delighted to follow my hon. Friends the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key). It is characteristic of these debates that people speak up for some of the best schools in the country. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford stressed that we are not talking about the grammar schools being the best. We stand to lose a system that is working in both the grammar and the secondary modern schools.
Last week, the Minister underlined that point for my constituents and the people of Trafford by including the Ashton-on-Mersey school in his list of beacon schools. That is a most helpful gesture by the Government, which underlined to my constituents the fact that Ministers share my view that it is nothing but arrant nonsense to suggest that those who do not go to the grammar schools are consigned to failure at 11. They clearly are not—they are consigned to beacon schools.
Last night, I had the privilege of presenting awards at another secondary modern school in my constituency, the New Wellington school. It is achieving magnificent results—often better than many comprehensive schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made the telling point that that was the kind of initiative that the Government might have come up with had they not been wedded to a rather old-fashioned hostility towards grammar schools. In the north of Trafford, we have good grammar schools in Stretford and Urmston, which are doing the job of raising the academic standards of all schools—as will the beacon schools, I hope.
The Minister referred to the origin of many of the amendments lying with the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation.

The Committee was right to return to many of the arguments of Conservative members of the Standing Committee—that the Bill was too vague, left too much to discretion and subsequent regulation by Ministers, and contained insufficient detail and information for parents and others with an interest.
The Minister talked about the technical amendments, and amendments that are required to put a little more in the Bill. Some of them are welcome as far as they go. I certainly welcome the slight relaxation in the gagging provisions. That will be welcome to the governing bodies of schools in my constituency, many of which have been very concerned about the interpretation of the limitations placed on them by the Bill.
The Minister rightly accepted that even this Government could not prevent people who happened to be school governors from expressing their views; those people would probably have published their views anyway with "governor of" in parenthesis after their names. He has accepted that the restriction would have been unreasonable and unnecessary.
I welcome the fact that no public money can be spent on campaigning, either by the schools or by local education authorities. I particularly welcome the relaxation of the gagging order on LEAs, as I want local Labour parties and councillors to be able to demonstrate their hostility to these excellent schools as openly as possible. It is regrettable that the Government have tried to wash their hands of the implications of their proposals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said.

Mr. Green: I assure my hon. Friend that, certainly in Kent, where some Labour Members are very publicly opposing the grammar schools in their constituencies, parents will not fail to let it be known who is leading the campaign and what effect it will have.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful for that intelligence on what is happening in the south-east.
In Trafford, Labour councillors have been more reticent about stating their views, in the knowledge that, certainly for nearly all my life, local elections there have frequently turned on the question of the future of the grammar schools. Labour won control of the council only in 1995, when it came up with a new local formula; it said that it would do nothing to harm the grammar schools, and that future policy would be a matter for a Labour Government if and when one were elected. The council passed the buck to the Government, but the Government are now passing it back. Ultimately, however, the buck will rest fairly and squarely with the Labour party, which is maintaining its hostility to these excellent schools.
The amendments leave considerable room for confusion; they are not as good as we may have wanted. However, they would rightly make it more clear which parents are eligible to vote in ballots. The consultation paper on the matter is something of a dog's breakfast; it contains completely different eligibility criteria for different types of grammar schools—those that stand alone, those in groups and those that are in wholly selective LEA areas. The Government must say exactly why they believe it appropriate that only parents of children in primary feeder schools should vote on the future of some grammar schools, whereas all parents of school-age children—primary or secondary—may vote on the future of others.
The amendments also deal with the payment of costs that are necessarily incurred not in campaigning, but in the petitioning and balloting procedure. They would ensure that the Bill specified that a petition would have to meet a 20 per cent. threshold before a ballot could be called. That is welcome, although I should prefer a higher threshold.
A more important point—whether there should be a minimum majority requirement in any ballot—is left open. It is wrong that vastly important decisions on the future of many schools could be taken by a small number of parents. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I believe that the criteria that apply in ballots on trade union recognition could reasonably apply in school ballots; I do not understand why, in trade union ballots, 40 per cent. of those eligible must vote whereas, in ballots on schools, a simple majority of any number of parents is sufficient. I should like the Bill to be clearer on that.
Lords amendment No. 118 is rather worrying. Is my understanding correct—that it would remove the power for Ministers to establish how the result of a ballot is to be ascertained? If so, is the Minister deliberately endorsing a position whereby the Government give up the power to set a minimum threshold for a majority requirement to come into the balloting procedure?
This is possibly the biggest issue of concern to my constituents. The onus must be firmly on those who seek to change a system that works so well. In the borough of Trafford, that system achieves the best A-level results in the country, and the 10th best GCSE results; in Buckinghamshire, it achieves the best GCSE results. That should be borne in mind by those who want to introduce a balloting system that could throw away those advantages far too cheaply.
Which are the designated areas? Has the Minister given further thought to whether greater emphasis on the truly local might be appropriate in the balloting procedure? For the grammar schools in Altrincham, the catchment area would be a far more appropriate boundary for balloting and parental eligibility than the whole borough of Trafford.
Some of the changes are welcome, but some are cause for concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford made clear, the changes will cause massive disruption not only through the balloting procedure itself but if a ballot should decide to get rid of selective schools. In any shift towards comprehensive schools, there is a reduction in the number and diversity of schools and in parental choice, and standards generally go down. To throw away the high standards in some of the best schools in the country would be unfortunate at a time when the Government say that they are focusing on the need to raise standards.
One of the most unfortunate effects of the ballot campaigns, if and when they happen, will arise from the attitude of those who oppose selection. They talk about the children in secondary modern schools being consigned to failure at 11, and risk damaging and discouraging those children. The Secretary of State regularly visits my constituency, although he has not so far taken the time to visit one of my grammar schools, but when Ministers come to my constituency, they will see that both the

grammar schools and the secondary modern schools are excellent. At a school such as New Wellington school, where I was last night—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the mark again. Will he come back to the amendments?

Mr. Brady: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply seeking to emphasise the point that one of the most damaging effects of the ballot campaigns could be the erroneous argument that we are dealing with some pupils who have failed and some who succeed. We are dealing with pupils who are being educated appropriately for their abilities and the way in which they are best able to learn. The system works and those people who detract from it or oppose the retention of a selective education system, where we still have one, are doing a disservice to children in secondary modern schools.

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) accused the Government of incoherence in these amendments, which was typically kind—I would accuse them of intolerance. Change for the sake of change is undesirable, but creating the potential for change for its own sake is also deeply undesirable.
The technical amendments are not contentious, but funding is more complex and the amendment that deals with it is welcome in the sense that it would free governing bodies to set out a clear and resolute case in defence of their school—or not, if they do not wish to defend it, although I cannot imagine that that would be the case—and because it prohibits the spending of public money. As we have seen with the ballots for grant-maintained schools, the problem is that there are cleverer and more sinister ways to fund extremely negative and dirty campaigns, often perpetrated by the less wise members of the Labour party—not like the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard).
The reservation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) alluded is right and proper, and the amendment does not go sufficiently far towards controlling that sort of activity. As I said, I am concerned that there will be dirty campaigns, but I disagree with my hon. Friend, in that I do not think that the Labour party will be able to escape the blame. If there are any petitions or campaigns in south Lincolnshire, we shall nail the blame where it belongs.
Indeed, many of us would welcome the opportunity to do so, because the ballot and the process that leads to it, which is implicit in this legislation, will be deeply unpopular with parents of grammar school pupils, parents with children at feeder schools who believe that they will have a chance of getting to grammar school—usually a greater proportion of the children than ultimately get there—and people who have a relationship with the school past and present, in other words, much of the community. Electorally, that would be an undesirable move from the Government's point of view and it would not be in their interests.
I must point out two other aspects of the Bill, the first of which has not been mentioned. What will be the effect of the provisions on the discretion of local education authorities? Lincolnshire LEA is Conservative-controlled, but, until the last election, it was under Labour control and, during that time, it chose not to interfere with


grammar schools. That may have had more to do with the practical business of trying to remain popular—clearly it failed, as Labour was thrown out—than with any philosophical commitment to selection; notwithstanding that, the LEA had the right to make a decision that was sensitive to local traditions, opinion and needs.
The Bill would certainly inhibit and restrict the freedom of democratically elected county councillors or members of LEAs to make decisions appropriate for their areas. That returns us to the contradiction between a centrally controlled, dictated and uniform system, which in fairness may be designed to drive up standards, and the flexibility and diversity from which education benefits so greatly, which gives local people the power to make local decisions that best match the needs of local communities.
My final point was dealt with to some extent but needs amplification. Where selection exists, it is good not merely for the children who are selected but for children in primary schools, who try to attain the necessary standard to gain admission to the local grammar school, and for many secondary modern schools. In the past, I have mentioned good schools in Spalding—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendments.

Mr. Hayes: In summary, then, the amendments fail to deal with the maintenance of high standards across the primary and secondary education systems where selection exists. We shall fight to retain not only grammar schools but all good schools where local people want them.

Mr. Byers: I shall seek to deal only with points raised about the amendments, so I can be fairly brief. I listened with interest to those points. I have met several hon. Members and delegations from their constituencies, including representatives of grammar schools, and head teachers. I have also visited grammar schools to see the quality of the education that they provide.
As the Minister responsible for school standards, I should be mindful of all the arguments, but that does not mean that all of them can be incorporated in regulations. The regulations on which we are consulting are better and fairer than they would have been had I not heard those representations. They go nowhere near meeting the concerns expressed by many Conservative Members, but they improve on what might have been had we not heard those concerns.
As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who made his points well, has said, I met him and a delegation from grammar schools in his constituency. The draft regulations are out for consultation, which will finish at the end of July, and we shall produce the regulations in due course.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked about timing. We want the House to have an opportunity to debate and vote on the regulations affecting grammar schools, and we shall produce a timetable that will ensure that hon. Members can do so. We are conscious of the strong views held by Conservative Members and Labour Members on grammar schools. I want the regulations to be as fair as possible, and I want to ensure that people feel that they have had an opportunity to express their views.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful for that commitment. I apologise if I am pre-empting the Minister, but I am keen

that he should address the question whether any of the amendments—particularly Lords amendment No. 118 on the possibility of a threshold majority—would limit the scope of regulations to take account of the consultation exercise.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman made a couple of points to which I intended to return. He is right to say that Lords amendment No. 118 removes reference to regulations specifying how the result of a ballot will be determined. It does that because Lords amendment No. 128 ensures that the Bill will say how regulations will be determined. The hon. Gentleman referred to the definition and impact of designated areas, which are important to his constituency. I intend designated areas to be included in draft regulations, so the hon. Gentleman will be able to debate them and vote on them. There will be an opportunity to revisit the issue in more detail once the regulations specify the designated areas. I hope that that meets some of his concerns.
The onus for change will rest on those advocating change. There is no doubt that, in so important a decision as the future of grammar schools and the selective system, there will be a high turnout among parents. That is why we have not been persuaded to specify a minimum turnout in the Bill or regulations. We have provided that a minimum of 20 per cent. of parents should sign the petition to requisition a ballot, but, once a ballot has been called, the nature and importance of the decision will ensure a high turnout among the parents eligible to take part.
I do not believe that this is a betrayal by the Government. Our manifesto clearly stated that the future of grammar schools would be a matter for local determination by parents. That is what we are seeking to do in the regulations under the Bill and in the draft regulations that will come forward in due course. Let us be clear: it will not be the Labour Government who close a grammar school, but local parents. That is only right and proper. Where grammar schools have broad support, they have nothing to fear from the Bill.
I hope that I have been able to address some of the issues raised by Conservative Members, if not to satisfy them. We will have the chance to revisit the matter when we go through the affirmative resolution procedure for the regulations. I will make sure that the draft regulations are published in a way that ensures a debate in this House and in the House of Lords. The Lords amendments improve the Bill, and I am pleased that they have had a broad welcome from Opposition Members. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in its amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 116 to 129 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Clause 107

SCHOOL MEALS

Lords amendment: No. 130, in page 81, leave out line 31 and insert
("schools maintained by local education authorities.")

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 131 to 136.

Ms Morris: The amendments clarify the powers taken in the legislation on school meals. They extend the


Secretary of State's power to set nutritional standards for lunches served in pupil referral units and maintained nursery schools. Part of the reason for that clarification is that the original wording dealt with maintained schools and schools maintained by local authorities. We found that PRUs and maintained nursery schools fell outside the legislation.
The amendments place a duty on local authorities to provide paid lunches for pupils under compulsory school age only when those pupils are full-time. Many pupils under school age who attend nursery are part-time. We have not put a duty on local authorities to provide lunches in those circumstances. Where lunches are provided for children under the legal age of starting school, they should abide by the nutritional standards on which we shall shortly consult.
The amendments also define what a school lunch is, in case anyone has any doubt or has forgotten the days when we used to partake of them.

Mr. Don Foster: Great.

Ms Morris: I am not sure that "great" is the adjective that I would apply. School meals can be but are not always a set meal. As we know, the majority of secondary schools and an increasing number of primary schools now have a cafeteria-style system rather than providing the same set meal that every child must eat.
The amendment clarifies the meaning of a school meal, so that, when we consult on the nutritional standards, all children benefit from an important attempt to ensure that our children grow up on a healthy diet and are encouraged to eat such.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 131 to 136 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 137, after clause 116, to insert the following new clause—Travel arrangements for children receiving nursery education otherwise than at school—
. After section 509 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—

Travel arrangements for children receiving nursery education otherwise than at school.

509A.—(1) A local education authority may provide a child with assistance under this section if they are satisfied that, without such assistance, he would be prevented from attending at any premises—

(a) which are not a school or part of a school, but
(b) at which relevant nursery education is provided, for the purpose of receiving such education there.

(2) The assistance which may be provided for a child under this section consists of either—

(a) making arrangements (whether for the provision of transport or otherwise) for the purpose of facilitating the child's attendance at the premises concerned, or
(b) paying the whole or any part of his reasonable travel expenses.

(3) When considering whether to provide a child with assistance under this section in connection with his attendance at any premises, a local education authority may have regard (among other things) to whether it would be reasonable to

expect alternative arrangements to be made for him to receive relevant nursery education at any other premises (whether nearer to his home or otherwise).

(4) Where the assistance to be provided for a child under this section consists of making arrangements for the provision of transport, the authority may, if they consider it appropriate to do so, determine that the assistance shall not be so provided unless—

(a) the child's parent, or
(b) the person providing the relevant nursery education concerned,

agrees to make to the authority such payments in respect of the provision of the transport (not exceeding the cost to the authority of its provision) as they may determine.

(5) In this section "relevant nursery education" means nursery education which is provided—

(a) by a local education authority, or
(b) by any other person—

(i) who is in receipt of financial assistance given by such an authority and whose provision of nursery education is taken into account by the authority in formulating proposals for the purposes of section 113(2)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, or
(ii) who is in receipt of grants under section 1 of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996." "

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 367. I inform the House that amendment No. 137 involves privilege.

Ms Morris: Amendment No. 137 allows local authorities to provide transport for those in nursery education. Again, it involves a definition of a school and of early years education—which is of course before the age at which school officially starts. As we move into an era in which all four-year-olds are entitled to early years education—the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made today will double the number of three-year-olds in early years education to 66 per cent. within three years—it is important that we give attention to school transport for this age group.
The amendment will benefit parents, providers of nursery education and local authorities, by giving a power to provide transport or help with transport expenses for children travelling to and from settings where part-time education for children under five is provided. I reassure hon. Members that included within the amendment will be all the providers who contribute to the early years development plan. It will be not only for the maintained schools but for the voluntary and independent sector.

Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister say what sort of transport she has in mind for three and four-year-olds? Almost certainly, most three-year-olds travelling on public transport would require a high level of supervision. Few parents would willingly put a three-year-old on a minibus or public transport vehicle without a lot of reassurances. I am thinking of staffing ratios, safety belts and the suitability of the vehicle. Would children of that age be expected to share transport with older children travelling to their separate schools? One can see all sorts


of problems if tiny children are mixed in with seven, eight or even 11-year-olds. What exactly does she have in mind?

Ms Morris: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The notion of a three-year-old plonked on a minibus with no security or supervision is one with which neither parents nor the Government would be happy. The purpose of the amendment is in this primary legislation is to give local authorities the power to use money to provide transport. That is an important step. I reassure the hon. Lady that I believe that the age group clearly needs special consideration. As we move forward, we shall issue guidance to local authorities, to ensure that young children are protected. We shall consult not only local authorities but parents, traditional providers of school transport and others. I reassure the hon. Lady that I certainly see the needs of this age group as different and special compared to those of secondary age children, who are the bulk of the children who travel to school.
I feel strongly that most young children should go to a nursery setting near where they live. I think that that will happen in most cases, but in rural areas or perhaps occasionally to meet parents' demands or preferences, it may be necessary to place a child further away. If we do not take the power to ensure that local authorities can spend money for this purpose, we might be denying places to children who might otherwise be able to have them. I assure the hon. Lady that we shall give proper consideration to the points that she has raised when we draw up the guidance and advice.

Mr. Brady: The Minister has touched on the point that I wish to raise—the question of distance travelled by very small children. I wanted to flag up my concern about the possibility of the amount of time taken by a long journey to nursery school being considered, by some parents, to be a partial solution to a child care problem. I am not saying that it would happen often, but it strikes me as a cause for concern, because I know of some cases in which children are put on certain types of transport because it takes longer to get to school. I ask the Minister to take that into account when drawing up the guidelines.

Ms Morris: I have visions of children in Altrincham and Sale, West being driven around on the bus for an hour before school and two hours after school to fit in with their parents' working arrangements. I am sure that it does not happen often, but I take the point.
I want to assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that, when an early years development plan is sent to the Department for approval, one of the things that we check is distance, because we need to be sure that the children covered by the plan do not have to travel unreasonable distances. That was an issue that we took up with many local authorities when they published their plan, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is something that we shall continue to watch carefully. As a Government who have put an extra £400 million into child care, we do not need to have children riding around on the underground to meet their parents' child care needs. That is not one of our solutions.
Amendment No. 367 will allow the Secretary of State to require local authorities to publish details of their nursery transport policy, in the same way as they currently

publish school and college transport details. I hope that that will further allay the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). The transport arrangements made will be clear both to parents, so that they know what is available, and—perhaps as important—to local authorities and the Government, so that we can be sure that they are proper.

Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 119

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR SECURING EFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEAs AND MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 138, in page 90, line 37, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Section 80 shall apply in relation to the code as it applies in relation to a code of practice under section 79.")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Members of the Standing Committee, of whom there are several present tonight, will know that one of the issues that received cross-party support was the need to establish a code of practice covering the relationship between LEAs and individual schools. We published the draft code for consultation and I am pleased that it has been widely welcomed by schools in all sectors and by local education authorities and Church education authorities. The draft code managed to strike the right balance between competing, and sometimes conflicting, aims and objectives.
However, several hon. Members expressed the view in Committee that, although the code was useful, there should be parliamentary approval for it. Attention was drawn to the admissions code, which will be subject to parliamentary approval, and hon. Members argued that it would be appropriate for the code of practice for local education authority and individual school relations to be subject to parliamentary approval as well. The Government considered that point and moved amendment No. 138 in the House of Lords, which provides that the code of practice will be subject to parliamentary approval. I hope that that arrangement will meet with the approval of the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 120

RESTRICTIONS ON FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO NON-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 139, in page 91, line 24, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2),")

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 140 and the Government motion to disagree thereto.
I must inform the House that amendment No. 139 involves privilege.

Mr. Blunkett: I remember that, when the Bill returned from Committee for Report and Third Reading, we had


this debate at about 3 o'clock in the morning. Given the length of today's debates and the pressure on the House, I do not intend to go over all that old ground. Suffice it to say that we are dealing not with partnership agreements but with an amendment that was understood in the Lords to be determined to remove any objections to the introduction of an alternative assisted places scheme. That would be the effect if we did not overturn the decision of the Lords.
The Lords carried the amendment by one vote, with the help of hereditary peers and against the Government's express wishes and our manifesto commitment. The Lords knew exactly what would be the impact of the amendment, and Lord Lucas made no bones about where he stood.
The debate is not about reaching partnership agreements. The Bill does not in any way infringe the ability of local authorities to purchase places for special educational needs requirements. It does not interfere with the legitimacy of local authorities in having sensible discretion, but our position on the amendment would stop them introducing assisted places schemes, which the House voted to abolish in a separate Bill, which received Royal Assent on 31 July 1997. A year later, we are back where we started. We simply cannot progress in this way.
The atmosphere is entirely different from that of Monday night, but we should not waste each other's time. Enough time has been wasted in this Session putting this and other Bills on the statute book. I do not mind sensible, rational debate, but repeating the same rational arguments time and again and having the Lords making amendments that they know perfectly well will be overturned by the Commons and playing silly political games does not endear people to the democratic process.
I want the House tonight to adopt the simple principle that we passed a Bill last summer, we have a manifesto commitment, we know perfectly well what we are doing, and we are not interfering with legitimate partnership arrangements, but we will not have other people introducing assisted places schemes, which we have abolished. What is more, we will not allow public money to be used to purchase provision in the specific circumstances that apply to the operation of assisted places schemes. That money, which is allocated through the taxpayer by the Government, is for reducing class sizes, improving standards and ensuring that children get a decent education wherever they go.
That is why we shall overturn the amendments. I hope that we shall not have, as we did ad nauseam until 10 past 5 in the morning on Report and Third Reading, people playing silly devils.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for reminding us that this is a far more reasonable hour than the early morning to consider the important points raised by the amendments. The strength of feeling on the matter could not have been more evident in our previous discussion, but the strength of argument will be greater at this time.
The Secretary of State had the gall to suggest that, by abolishing the assisted places scheme, the Government have been able to afford everything that they are doing for the education service. The facts speak for themselves. On their own figures, by the third year, the cumulative saving from abolishing the assisted places would be only

£100 million, and we heard only the other day from the Minister for School Standards that the cost of simply reducing class sizes would be £100 million a year. Today, we hear that the Government are spending £150 million of capital on building new classrooms for that project. Regardless of whether one agrees with lower class sizes—we have acknowledged that there is something to be said for that objective—no one can pretend that abolishing assisted places went anywhere near paying for that project, let alone the Government's other ambitions.
Labour Members may ask what this has to do with the amendment. That is a very good point. The amendment does not ask the Government to rediscover or reproduce that £40 million a year. It simply asks the Government to accept that local councils, with the support of local schools, parents, charities and sponsors, should be allowed to take advantage of the chance to give some local children for whom the idea is appropriate their best opportunity in life. That chance should not be denied by the prejudice that Labour Members have displayed not only in this House but in another place.
I am delighted to report to the House that Surrey county council recently received a glowing report from Ofsted. There can be no doubt that Surrey LEA achieves some of the best results for children of any LEA in the country. Surrey wants to introduce a partnership places scheme with local schools because of local conditions and local ambitions to achieve the best result for every child.
9.45 pm
The Secretary of State appeared to be trapped in the past; he appeared to be hung up on the old assisted places scheme. The Conservatives believe that that scheme had a lot to offer, but we want to go one better: we want to build on our experience, not deny it. In developing a new partnership scheme at the local education authority level, we want to build a scheme that will not demand a pound extra from the Department for Education and Employment but will introduce additional resources from outside the local education authority budget.
It is ironic that I have been in continual correspondence with the Minister for School Standards concerning the schools budget in Surrey. He tells me time and again how much more he would like Surrey county council to spend on education—and Surrey county council would certainly like to delegate more of its budget to education. However, the Minister's colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have cut the council's funding allocation. In a year when council tax has had to be increased by more than 10 per cent., there is a limit to how much local tax payers can bear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the amendment. I ask him not to talk in generalities, but to return to the amendment that is before the House.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The problem is that local education authority budgets are constrained by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions at the same time as the Department for Education and Employment demands that LEAs spend more on education. We have identified that we can spend more on local children by introducing money from private sources and the independent sector.


It is clear from the comments of the Secretary of State tonight, and from those of his colleagues on previous occasions, that they wish to deny us that opportunity of increasing the amount that is spent on children in Surrey and in other county council areas.
I have no more wish than the Secretary of State to cover old ground, so let us consider what has happened since the House last debated the issue. Several schemes involving independent schools and the Government were submitted to the Secretary of State; Only 16 per cent. of them were accepted. More than four out of five of the schemes developed and produced locally have been knocked down by the Department for Education and Employment. What confidence can we have that, under the regulations that the Government are demanding be reimposed by knocking out the Lords amendment, the Department will adopt a slightly more broad-minded approach and allow local education authorities—such as Surrey—which have been innovative and imaginative, to use their initiative to come up with their own schemes, instead of being constrained by the ideological diktats of the Labour party?
I quote briefly from the debate on the matter in the House of Lords. Baroness Blackstone, speaking of the clause that the Government are seeking to reinstate, said:
The key objective is to prevent LEAs establishing the assisted places scheme at a local level."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 1473.]
Let us contrast those comments with the words of the Secretary of State, not so long ago, in the autumn of 1995—when he was seeking votes, not merely enjoying power—when speaking to the Independent Schools Information Service, the independent schools' spokesbody. The front cover of its magazine of that period bore the headline:
Labour: Ready to be friends?
That magazine reports that, in answer to the question,
Would that be locally determined or would there be some kind of national scheme?
the current Secretary of State said:
Primarily we would have to allow local judgments".
Primarily, all that the Lords amendments are seeking is that we allow local judgments.

Mr. Blunkett: Not to prolong the debate but just for clarification, I should say that my remarks referred entirely to the type of excellent scheme that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has approved for the development of the links between St. George's community school in inner-city Bristol and the Wells cathedral school. It is entirely at that level that they developed that programme, and we supported it with resources.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am all for links between choir schools—one of my children attended one—and I am all for links with ballet schools. I am all for all sorts of local links, depending on local circumstances. It is not for the Secretary of State to dictate what those circumstances are.

If we are talking of excellence, let us refer to the recent research published in The Times Educational Supplement of 27 March 1998, which found that
potential high-flyers who do not have university-educated parents have greater difficulty realising their potential in comprehensives than in private schools.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now widening the debate again. Will he please return to the amendment before the House?

Mr. St. Aubyn: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are talking about leaving with local authorities a power to develop a scheme under which such children can go to independent schools if it is judged in their best interests—a power which the Secretary of State has made it clear he wishes to deny to such children.
The message of that report, reported in The Times Educational Supplement, is that some such children clearly benefit from such an education. If I may, I shall quote very briefly from that report again. The report concluded—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman must speak much more directly to the amendment. This is not a general debate.

Mr. St. Aubyn: There is clear evidence that children who win an assisted place at a private school go on to a better university and a better job than would otherwise be the case.
That raises the next issue. Should the question of local partnerships between local schools and a local education authority be determined locally in the interests of the child, or by the Minister in the interests of his policy? On a number of occasions, the Government have prayed in aid schemes that they deign to approve. In the House of Lords debate that I mentioned, the Front-Bench spokesman for the Government cited a scheme in Bromley.
It is ironic that the council in Bromley wants to enter a partnership scheme involving independent schools that is much wider than the one that the Department has approved. The reason is that there is a problem of class sizes in local secondary schools. If the council can buy places at local independent schools for the children for whom that is most appropriate, the class size problem in secondary schools will be alleviated.
The Government's announcement this afternoon of new classes to be built is not relevant to Bromley. Many of those schools are already over-subscribed, and lack the space to build new classrooms on their own ground. Therefore, the ability to buy places at other schools in the area answers a local need. However, we know from what the Minister has said before and what we have heard tonight that Bromley education authority and LEAs in Surrey and elsewhere will be denied the possibility of coping with a local problem in a way that answers their needs and those of children, parents and local schools, including those in the maintained sector.
If such a scheme were allowed, it is implicit in the Lords amendment that the selection of children to go to the local schools should be determined locally, which means involving the local education authority.

Mr. Don Foster: Hear, hear.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has previously compared the


situation to that of the nomination rights of a local authority in a local housing association. If, in devising a local scheme, an LEA wished to claim nomination rights, under the Lords amendment that the Government seek to reject, it would have those rights if it made them part of the scheme. It is right and proper that an LEA should have the power to do so.
The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to whom he reports were both taken to court by an 11-year-old child in order to make them meet their commitment to see that child through with an assisted place at the same school until the end of the child's education. The child had to learn that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to explain to the hon. Gentleman that this is not a debate about the assisted places scheme. Will he now speak specifically to the amendments before the House?

Mr. St. Aubyn: I want the Minister to comment. If he is intractable in his insistence on the regulations that his amendment seeks to reimpose, does he consider it reasonable that children who currently have an assisted place, who have a reasonable expectation, based on his comments and those of his Prime Minister, that they will see that education through to the age of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman cannot speak to the amendments, I suggest that he close his remarks.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am about to do so, but this relates to whether we should accept the amendment from the Secretary of State. If he is prepared to concede that, in the regulations that his amendment anticipates, he will allow children who currently have an assisted place to see their education through with the help of their LEA, that would be a move in the right direction. I urge the House to reject the Government's proposals.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to be called, and I will be brief. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members who have recently entered the Chamber are trying to make contributions; they may want to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in order to make more formal contributions.
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State remarkably combined pomposity with fatuousness. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is now impersonating a seal, so we can add that to the cocktail. The fatuous element of his speech was his statement that we had not moved forward since this time last year. In fact, the House of Lords has suggested something quite different: partnership schemes—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the School Standards and Framework Bill and the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment again considered.

Mr. Hayes: In regard to fatuousness, the Secretary of State has moved no further forward. The solution suggested

in the Lords amendment is different from the solution that we discussed when the matter first came before the House. Their Lordships suggest local discretion: they suggest that local people, through local education authorities, should be allowed to develop community schemes.
I know that it is some time since the Secretary of State served in local government, where he established a distinguished record; and I know that, once some people come to this place, they often forget their roots. Perhaps the Secretary of State has forgotten his. It is understandable: buoyed by money and power, people do forget. Nevertheless, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that discretion, innovation, choice and diversity will result from allowing local communities to devise schemes that are sensitive and responsive to local traditions and needs. Surely, in the context of his education policies, the Secretary of State should take that on board.
We are not debating—or re-debating, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested—the principle of assisted places. Of course the Government have a mandate to deal with the issue in whatever way they wish. We are debating the Lords, considered and intelligent attempt to amend Government policy to allow for local discretion. In the interests of local democracy, in the interests of innovation and, surely, in the interests of trying to make the policy more moderate, the Secretary of State should give ground.
I shall end on this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than testing your patience any further. I mentioned pomposity. I think that pomposity emanates from a Secretary of State and a Government who object to any revision of their policy. This is not about the hereditary principle—although the Secretary of State threw that into his remarks as a cutting aside; it is about the opportunity to question, to challenge, to attempt to moderate and to amend policies that are born of little more than arrogance.

Mr. Brady: I shall endeavour not to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of Labour Members—even the Secretary of State, who began this short debate by saying that he had become rather tired of proper democratic discussion of the subject. If he will give me a specific assurance on this very precise matter, I guarantee that I shall sit down immediately, and not say another word. I hope that we can work together for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who has made a strenuous case for the partnership places scheme that the people of Surrey have chosen to introduce. However, I want to deal with a very different matter, relating to circumstances that many of my constituents have enjoyed for some 50 years, going back to the second world war. I refer to the practice of the borough of Trafford, and what used to be Cheshire county council, of sending Roman Catholic pupils to fee-paying St. Bede's grammar school in order to provide denominational education in a co-educational environment.
I am pleased to see my neighbour, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), in his place. I believe that he benefited from the excellent education that St. Bede's has to offer. I do not know whether he did so through a fee-paying arrangement or with the help of the local authority, as many of my constituents still do.
I shall be less concerned about the Government's proposals if the Secretary of State can give me a simple assurance that the historic practice of the borough of


Trafford of providing extra denominational places by sending children to a fee-paying Roman Catholic grammar school will not be affected by the Bill. I do not believe that the clause was intended to cover a situation such as that of St. Bede's. It was specifically intended to rule out any deliberate return to the assisted places scheme through other means. I accept what the Secretary of State has said on that. I do not believe that there was an intention to prevent a local authority from continuing a practice that has gone on with wide acceptance for many years.
The practice has become controversial this year, because the ruling Labour group on Trafford council, which came to power a couple of years ago, has decided to end it. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Trafford—I welcome the support of the Liberal Democrat Members here, backing up their local people in Trafford—have guaranteed that, if and when they take back control of the borough, they will restore the practice of funding places at St. Bede's. The issue is of vital local significance.
The council's withdrawal of the scheme has caused considerable difficulty in the provision of denominational places for Roman Catholic children. There are now insufficient places, and Catholic children are having to go to non-Catholic schools against their wishes. I would welcome an assurance that the Secretary of State will not use the powers in the Bill to prevent the borough of Trafford from continuing the practice, which has gone on for 50 years, of sending Roman Catholic children to a co-educational denominational school which happens to be fee-paying.

Mr. Don Foster: I find myself in a difficult position. I agree more with the tone of the remarks of the Secretary of State than with what I have heard from the Conservatives, but I shall vote against the Secretary of State's recommendation. I shall try to explain why.
The Secretary of State rightly made clear his strong opposition to the assisted places scheme introduced by the previous Government. I entirely support him on that. We voted with him to bring about the end of the centralised assisted places scheme, which did not meet even the conditions laid down for it.
The Secretary of State has also said how much he is in favour of the development of partnerships between the state and independent sectors. I praise him and his Minister for their work on developing opportunities for such links to flourish. In about 1993, in an interview with the Independent Schools Information Service magazine, I talked about the importance of links between the state and independent sectors. About two years later, the current Secretary of State also gave an interview in which he repeated, almost word for word, what I had said. There is great agreement between us on the issue. We both believe in the importance of partnership between the two sectors.
The amendments relate to changes to the Education Act 1996. Section 518 of the Act made it possible for LEAs
to pay the whole or any part of the fees and expenses payable
at fee-paying schools. The Government want to replace that section, which the Lords oppose, so that LEAs may not pay all or part of the fees or expenses payable at independent schools unless regulations allow them to do so. The Government are to constrain a permissive power

in regulation that no hon. Member has yet had the opportunity to see. We do not know what constraints central the Government will impose on local government.
It is the duty of local education authorities to seek to meet the educational needs of children in their areas and to ensure high-quality education for every child. If necessary, it is right and proper for LEAs to seek to meet some of those needs through other education providers as they see fit, which may include the independent school sector. Local, democratically elected LEAs should be given unfettered powers to decide how best to meet needs. I do not want a return to the centralised assisted places scheme.
In another place, their lordships decided that it was inappropriate for central Government to try to lay down in regulations, which, as I have said, we have not yet seen, limits on how LEAs should choose to develop partnerships. I support in its entirety the view of their Lordships' House. It would be wrong for central Government to impose regulations on local government about how it should fulfil its fundamental responsibilities to provide high-quality education for every child in its area.

Mrs. May: I was disappointed by the way in which the Secretary of State opened the debate. This debate is not about the assisted places scheme. We have had that debate, and legislation on it has gone through the House—whatever our views of the rights or wrongs of the Government's policy. This debate is about partnership between local education authorities and independent schools in or beyond their areas.
I was also disappointed that the Secretary of State again told the House that we should take absolutely no notice of amendments agreed in another place. He more or less dismissed the other place as something that should not exist. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that the Government's position is that there should be no revising Chamber? Should they choose to introduce proposals on such a position, they would have a very difficult time. The other place has a valid role as a revising Chamber, looking again at legislation passed by this House. We are given the opportunity to think again on the basis of what their Lordships propose.
The Lords amendments would allow local education authorities freely to enter into partnership with independent schools, as opposed to the Government's rather prescriptive arrangements. Such arrangements are hardly surprising given the prescription throughout the Bill, which even includes, as we learned earlier, what constitutes the school meal. The Lords are rightly saying that that flexibility and freedom should be there for local education authorities.
10.15 pm
I find it somewhat surprising that the Government are opposing the Lords amendments on that matter, given the statements that have been made by the Secretary of State and others about partnerships between the public and private sectors. Only in February, in a speech to the Labour party local government conference, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The central thrust of the policy is to encourage innovation in order to provide higher standards in places where current provision is inadequate. It is in this context that we are keen to develop new public-private partnerships.


The White Paper, "Excellence in schools", contains a section on independent schools, which says:
The new partnership should embrace independent as well as state schools… The educational apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole education system".

Mr. Blunkett: Hear, hear.

Mrs. May: If the Secretary of State genuinely stands by what he said in the White Paper about partnerships between independent schools and the state sector, he should welcome the Lords amendments and agree with them, because they are an attempt to ensure that the Bill puts into practice the statements made by the Government in their White Paper.
Even more recently, in a speech to the Social Market Foundation at the beginning of this month, the Minister for School Standards said:
We believe that bridges should be built to enable the independent sector to play a part in our standards agenda. The response from the private sector has been extremely positive. Old hostilities are being put to one side".
The hon. Gentleman may have thought on 1 July that old hostilities were being put to one side, but it is clear from the speech by the Secretary of State about these amendments that that has not happened. If the Minister for School Standards stands by what he said to the Social Market Foundation, he too should support the Lords amendments, because that is precisely what they would do.
The amendments would give the local education authorities the opportunity to put together, with businesses, the private sector and independent schools in their areas, schemes that could work to the benefit of the children of the area in terms of the education provided. They would allow LEAs the whip hand; they would have the nomination rights and could determine where those rights would be taken up and how they would be allocated. The LEAs would be able to say, "Here is a child for whom we cannot in the normal course of events provide the education that we believe would be right. We believe that that could be provided by an independent school, so we will enter into a partnership so that that can be done."
That concept is accepted throughout the House in relation to children with special educational needs. Local authorities often cannot meet such children's needs within their own schools, so a place has to be bought in the non-maintained sector. I suggest that very bright children have needs every bit as special as those of others who are more naturally considered in the category of having special educational needs. If a local educational authority chooses to educate a child with those special needs outside the maintained sector, it should be free to do so. The Lords amendments would give freedom at local level.
I return to the issue that we have heard about throughout our debates tonight. Ministers stand up and talk about the importance of local decision taking, meeting local needs and accepting local circumstances, yet if we judge by how they vote on the Lords amendments and what they put into their legislation, the message is different.
Ministers are trying to restrain what goes on at local level, and to restrict the rights, flexibility and freedom of local education authorities. The amendments are about giving LEAs the opportunity to enter into partnerships with the private sector—partnerships that Ministers applaud in their rhetoric. However, as we see yet again, the reality of what the Government are doing is far from their rhetoric. The Lords amendments are about giving extra freedoms and flexibility to local education authorities to provide the education that is right for the children of their area. On that basis, we should support them.

Mr. Blunkett: I am sad that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has taken the view that he has. If I had read his 1993 speech, I would have saved myself about 55 minutes by ticking it and handing it over to the Independent Schools Information Service. We could have saved ourselves a lot of bother. Nobody is against discretion, and nobody wants to stop local authorities entering partnerships or placing children for special reasons.
I say to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that, if the local authority should in future choose to exercise its discretion, it would be able to do so in the circumstances that he described.
I was deeply offended and hurt by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), not least because I love the area that he represents. To be called pompous, or whatever it was—was it fatuous?—was deeply offensive. It has hurt me.

Mr. Brady: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I certainly will. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to hurt me as well.

Mr. Brady: I am seeking to atone for any offence that may have been caused, by giving the right hon. Gentleman heartfelt thanks on behalf of my constituents and the people of the borough of Trafford. They will be grateful for his assurance that should they choose, through the democratic process locally, to elect parties that support the provision of places at St. Bede's, they will be allowed to do so.

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful, but I regret that that is unlikely to prevent the hon. Gentleman from voting against us. However, I am always happy to make others happy.
I cannot make the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) happy, because he did not address the issue at all—he addressed something entirely different, which underpins why we cannot accept the Lords' view. In the end, what the Lords' view entails is exactly what the hon. Member for Guildford wants—to introduce an alternative assisted places scheme. He simply wants to be able to flout what we agreed in this House last year. For that reason, I say to the hon. Member for Bath that politics is full of guile, hidden meanings and what is written between the lines. When Conservative Members talk about partnership, they mean an assisted places scheme.

Mr. Don Foster: The Secretary of State is absolutely right—politics is about reading between the lines. The problem is that we have no lines to read between. We have not been given the opportunity even to look at draft regulations in relation to the clause. Will he acknowledge that, unless we have some indication of what sort of fettering powers he intends to impose on local education authorities, it will be difficult for anybody to accept that he should be given carte blanche to stop LEAs doing what they think is appropriate?

Mr. Blunkett: If the hon. Gentleman has accepted that we are entering partnership arrangements—which we are—he has accepted that we will not fetter any discretion in relation to special educational needs. We are dealing with the introduction of discretion to provide for an assisted places scheme at local level, which is what the hon. Member for Guildford was advocating.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Blunkett: I certainly will. I am hoping for some clarification of the matter.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I have been thrown into confusion by the Secretary of State. He accused me of being pompous, but then complained when my colleague returned the compliment. What is being claimed by the Lords, and what has been claimed in debate after debate in this House, is the right for local authorities to decide what is needed locally, building beyond the assisted places scheme with newer, more positive schemes. The right hon. Gentleman has gone on time and again about the number of children in classes in primary schools. If a local education authority seeks to reduce the number of children in a class in a secondary school by sending some other children to an independent school in the same area, will he deny that class smaller numbers in the classroom?

Mr. Blunkett: The Government are doing a great deal about reducing numbers in the classroom, some of which we announced this afternoon. The idea that, in order to reduce numbers in a secondary school classroom, we must send children off to a private school on a local assisted places scheme beggars belief. This debate has to have some credibility, but I do not for a moment believe that either the intention or the outcome of what the House of Lords proposes would ensure partnership or give local authorities the discretion to do their job better. The amendments are entirely to do with facilitating a better, broader, more expansive or whatever one wants to call it assisted places scheme.
We have thought about the matter and decided that our original thoughts were better than those of the House of Lords, which wanted to change the position back to what we thought we had changed in the first place. We do not want an assisted places scheme, either local or national, which is why we shall ensure that the amendments are overturned.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 137.

Division No. 338]
[10.25 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cranston, Ross


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Crausby, David


Alexander, Douglas
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ashton, Joe
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dalyell, Tam


Atkins, Charlotte
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Banks, Tony
Darvill, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Battle, John
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dawson, Hilton


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bennett, Andrew F
Dismore, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Dobbin, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H


Best, Harold
Doran, Frank


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradshaw, Ben
Etherington, Bill


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Stephen
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gardiner, Barry


Canavan, Dennis
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Caton, Martin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chaytor, David
Godsiff, Roger


Chisholm, Malcolm
Goggins, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Dr Lynda  (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coleman, Iain
Healey, John


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heppell, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hesford, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Cox, Tom
Hood, Jimmy






Hoon, Geoffrey
Mullin, Chris


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoyle, Lindsay
Olner, Bill


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Neill, Martin


Hurst, Alan
Pearson, Ian


Hutton, John
Pickthall, Colin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pike, Peter L


Jamieson, David
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Quinn, Lawrie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Radice, Giles


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rammell, Bill


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kemp, Fraser
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rooker, Jeff


Khabra, Piara S
Rooney, Terry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rowlands, Ted


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ruane, Chris


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Laxton, Bob
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Leslie, Christopher
Salter, Martin


Levitt, Tom
Savidge, Malcolm


Linton, Martin
Sawford, Phil


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sheerman, Barry


Lock, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Love, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McDonnell, John
Snape, Peter


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


McIsaac, Shona
Spellar, John


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Ms Rachel


McNulty, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


MacShane, Denis
Steinberg, Gerry


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McWalter, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mallaber, Judy
Stringer, Graham


Mandelson, Peter
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marek, Dr John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Martlew, Eric
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Michael, Alun
Timms, Stephen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Tipping, Paddy


Milburn, Alan
Touhig, Don


Miller, Andrew
Truswell, Paul


Mitchell, Austin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moffatt, Laura
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Wareing, Robert N


Morley, Elliot
Watts, David


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
White, Brian


Mudie, George
Whitehead, Dr Alan





Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Worthington, Tony



Wray, James


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wilson, Brian
Wyatt, Derek


Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Woolas, Phil
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Keetch, Paul


Allan, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Arbuthnot, James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Leigh, Edward


Baldry, Tony
Letwin, Oliver


Beggs, Roy
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bercow, John
Lidington, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Livsey, Richard


Body, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Boswell, Tim
Loughton, Tim


Brady, Graham
Luff, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Breed, Colin
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Madel, Sir David


Burnett, John
Malins, Humfrey


Butterfill, John
Maples, John


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cash, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
May, Mrs Theresa



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Chidgey, David
Moss, Malcolm


Chope, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Clappison, James
Norman, Archie


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
ÖPik, Lembit


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Ottaway, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Cotter, Brian
Paterson, Owen


Cran, James
Pickles, Eric


Curry, Rt Hon David
Prior, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Rendel, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robathan, Andrew


Evans, Nigel
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Faber, David
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fabricant, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Flight, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sanders, Adrian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb, Nick
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gill, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorrie, Donald
Spring, Richard


Gray, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Green, Damian
Stunell, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hayes, John
Tredinnick, David


Heald, Oliver
Trend, Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tyler, Paul


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Tyrie, Andrew


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Wallace, James


Hunter, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Webb, Steve


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen



Whittingdale, John






Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willis, Phil
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Stephen Day and


Woodward, Shaun
Mr. Nigel Waterson.


Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 140 disagreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 141, after clause 120, to insert the following new clause—Payment of school expenses; grant of scholarships, etc—
 . For section 518 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be substituted—

Payment of school expenses; grant of scholarships, etc.

518.—(1) A local education authority, for the purpose of enabling persons to take advantage of any educational facilities available to them, may in such circumstances as may be specified in or determined in accordance with regulations—

(a) pay such expenses of children attending community, foundation, voluntary or special schools as may be necessary to enable them to take part in any school activities,
(b) grant scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries and other allowances in respect of persons over compulsory school age.

(2) Regulations may make provision—

(a) for requiring a local education authority to make, in relation to each financial year, a determination relating to the extent to which they propose to exercise their power under subsection (1)(b) in that year; and
(b) for authorising an authority to determine not to exercise that power in a financial year—

(i) generally,
(ii) in such cases as may be prescribed, or
(iii) in such cases as may be determined by the authority." "

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 369 and 394. Amendment No. 141 involves privilege.

Mr. Byers: I ask the House to agree with this group of amendments, most of which are technical, although one gives the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to allow local education authorities to offer financial support to students if they choose to do so, which is important. It is a good example of the Secretary of State giving LEAs the flexibility to respond to local needs and aspirations as they find them.
The current arrangements for post-16 discretionary awards are failing our young people and need to be replaced. The Government have considered the recommendations of the Lane committee and, as a result of the conclusions of the comprehensive spending review, we have been thinking how we can assist young people post-16 to stay on in full-time education.
Hon. Members will be aware that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment have confirmed that we shall pilot educational maintenance allowances over the next 12 to 18 months. The amendments will give the Secretary of State the power to do that. They will also allow local education authorities to offer financial support if they feel it is appropriate. I hope that they commend themselves to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry.]

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 142, after clause 120, to insert the following new clause—Transfer of assisted places—
.—(1) In section 3(2) of the Education (Schools) Act 1997 (regulations for purposes of transitional arrangements), after paragraph (f) there shall be added—
(g) provide for the Secretary of State, in a case where he is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so in view of any particular circumstances relating to a pupil who holds (or has at any time held) an assisted place provided by a school under section 2(1), to authorise another school which is either—

(i) a former participating school, or
(ii) a new school authorised to provide assisted places by virtue of paragraph (f) above,

to provide for the pupil under section 2(1) the assisted place which the first-mentioned school was authorised to provide.
(2) In section 75A(9A) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (regulations in connection with assisted places)—
(a) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b) shall be omitted; and
(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted "; and
(c) provide for the Secretary of State, in a case where he is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so in view of any particular circumstances relating to a pupil who holds (or has, at any time since the beginning of the first term of the 1997–98 school year, held) an assisted place at a school under a scheme operated by virtue of subsection (1) above, to authorise another school which is, or is treated as, a participating school to provide for the pupil under such a scheme the assisted place which the first—mentioned school was authorised to provide."

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 177, 179, 182 to 186, 383 and 386.

Mr. Byers: The amendments cover perhaps only a handful of young people, but they are important. At present, the law on phasing out the assisted places scheme does not permit a child to transfer an assisted place from one school to another. However, there may be pressing reasons why a child should be able to do so. Ministers' attention has been drawn to several cases in which there are family and social reasons why an alternative school is needed.
The amendments would give the Secretary of State a power to agree that an assisted place can be transferred in exceptional circumstances where compassion demands it. The amendments respond to the situations that have been raised with us. We shall operate the discretionary power responsibly and sensibly. We have already


exercised existing discretionary powers in considering 180 applications for transfer. More than half have been agreed to, which shows that we have been fair and reasonable.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Can the Minister confirm that three criteria apply in such cases, and that the Government have exercised discretion reflecting compassion and the needs of the child in only two cases that do not meet those criteria?

Mr. Byers: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with detailed figures, as I do not have them to hand. I believe that more than two have been agreed on grounds beyond the three specified criteria. Wherever possible, we have sought to be generous and sympathetic, as these amendments are.

Mrs. May: I welcome the amendments. As the Minister has said, a number of young people may benefit from what I must call a U-turn by the Government. Those points were raised by Opposition Members during the debate on the Education (Schools) Bill. The Government set their face implacably against the discretion that their amendments introduce.
I fear that the Government's sudden transformation came not because they had considered the concerns of parents or the education of any of the children involved but because a parent decided to take them to the High Court to challenge the fact that his son was not being allowed to transfer to a second school. The Government decided to pull out of the case and allow the child to transfer to a second school. The case involved junior and senior schools at Ely.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady has totally misunderstood the consequences of the amendments, which relate to a child at secondary school who wants to transfer to a different secondary school. That is why we tabled them. The situation that she describes is covered by the Education (Schools) Act 1997. She needs to be clear about the consequences of the amendments, but her contribution so far has shown that she is unclear about them.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, because it suggests that he does not understand the sort of case that I was citing. The amendment, as I read it, does not refer to the two schools being secondary schools but talks about a pupil transferring to another school to continue the assisted place. That was what was happening in the High Court case of Alastair Sanderson.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady is misleading the House—inadvertently, I am sure. I do not think that it is helpful to mention individual cases in the way that she did but that case has now been agreed under the discretion that the Secretary of State already has. Tonight, we are considering a quite different discretion to allow an individual who already has an assisted place to move to another school with it. That is quite different. The case she mentions has nothing to do with the Lords amendment.

Mrs. May: It seems that, every time the Minister speaks on this, he talks about increased flexibility in the Government's provisions for children who have been granted assisted places. It is precisely that point that the

amendment addresses and to which I want to refer in respect of other cases. I am sorry that he feels that it is not helpful to refer to individual cases, because it is clear that there are several cases in which people are happy to be quoted on this issue. They have found themselves in difficulty because the Government have exercised discretion on assisted places in some cases, and not in others and are extending their powers in the Lords amendment on such decisions. Those are people who accepted assisted places in 1996 or 1997 on the basis of assurances given them by the Labour party before the general election and subsequently.

Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is out of order. She is dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances. The amendment is to do with the transfer of children who have places but who, because of family circumstances, move to another part of the country and take up another place. I know that, because it was on my instructions that we tabled the amendment to overcome what I considered an unacceptable anomaly.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Let me answer the first point of order. I shall not be long in coming back to the hon. Gentleman.
There is an ambiguity in the mind of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). It is for Ministers to put her right. She is raising a matter and is entitled to an explanation. If the Minister feels that a full and proper explanation has been given, we shall have to end it at that.

Mr. St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Secretary of State issues instructions to his officials to draft a new clause, but they give it a wider ambit that permits a wider debate, is it in order for the Secretary of State to try to limit the debate in the House to the clause that he originally intended to table, but clearly failed to do?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the issue. I think that my ruling was excellent. It was a first-class ruling.

Mrs. May: Your rulings are always excellent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In order to allay your concerns and any concerns held by Ministers, I should say that my remarks are pertinent to the Lords amendment. It relates to the circumstances in which a pupil seeks to move from one school to another, but to transfer his assisted place. It was interesting that the Secretary of State rose to say that I was out of order before he had heard about the cases. Either he is telepathic or he knows well the concerns that have been raised by parents.
The cases that I was starting to quote were instances in which individuals believed that they had places at schools which were defined as all-through schools, which the Labour party before the election told them would be honoured. The Secretary of State, in a letter, sent—

Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is confusing vertical with horizontal. The amendment deals with transfer across. She is referring to transfer upwards.

Mrs. Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Everyone wants to raise a point of order. I have to reply to the point of order. Let me say to the Minister that those are matters for debate.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Browning: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. After the hon. Member for Maidenhead has said her piece, I will happily call either the Secretary of State or the Minister to reply to her. That is the way that things are done in the House. The Minister can then rebut her argument. So far, her argument has not been out of order. If it had been out of order, I would have told her so.

Mrs. Browning: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your assistance? Whatever the Secretary of State may wish to say in response to my hon. Friend, it would be extremely helpful if she could be allowed to complete what she has to say. I am finding it extremely frustrating. Just as I am beginning to follow her line of reasoning, the Secretary of State intervenes to cut her off. May I ask you to assist the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am assisting the House. I call the hon. Member for Maidenhead.

Mrs. May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I trust that I shall be able to reach the question that I wish to ask the Government on the basis of the cases to which I have referred. It is interesting that the Secretary of State finds such need to stand up and try to break off the argument on this issue. It suggests a certain sensitivity on his part.
I was about to refer—this is part of the question that I wish to ask the Secretary of State or the Minister—to a letter that the Secretary of State sent out on 10 March this year to a Mrs. Teed in Maidstone in Kent. He made it clear that there was—[Interruption.] Perhaps if I may be allowed to complete the argument, the Secretary of State or the Minister will be able to say whether the issue is relevant. In that letter, the Secretary of State talked about vertical schooling, in the sense that he said to Mrs. Teed:
Where there was provision of an 'all through' school and where there had been a clear promise of a place through to the age of 18, we have agreed to honour that promise.

Parents and grandparents are being told that that promise will not be honoured—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must say to the Minister that the hon. Lady has the Floor. She is the only one who is going to address the Chamber at this moment.

Mrs. May: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. May: If the Secretary of State could have a little patience, I was almost at the point—

Mr. David Jamieson: Get on with it.

Mrs. May: If the Government Whip wants me to get on, he should keep his Secretary of State from constantly standing up.
In his letter of 10 March, the Secretary of State said that the Government would honour the provision of an all-through school place where it had been promised through to the age of 18, but parents have discovered that those places are not being honoured. They are being told that the senior school of the school in which their child has been given a junior school place constitutes a separate school, and that it is not an all-through place.
The point is that the amendment gives the Secretary of State a power of discretion in those cases where a child wishes to transfer an assisted place from one school to another. My question, which I could have asked several minutes ago had the Secretary of State allowed me the opportunity to do so, is this. Is it possible for those parents who have written to me—having written several times to the Secretary of State, having checked the Labour party's policy when it was in opposition and having had that assurance from the Secretary of State, but having found that the all-through places are not being honoured because the schools are now defined as being separate schools—to ask the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion under the new powers given in the amendment, which the Government introduced in the House of Lords, which the Lords passed and which the Government now claim gives them extra flexibility—which it does; there has been a U-turn from the position taken last summer when what became the Education (Schools) Act 1987 went through the House—because the DfEE has now defined the school in which the place was given as being two separate schools? I should tell the Secretary of State that the amendment at which I am looking makes no reference to horizontal transfer, but only to transfer to another school under the assisted places scheme.
Parents and children are being disappointed because they trusted Labour's word when it was in opposition, but they have found that that word, that promise, that pledge, to them has been broken. Children who thought that they had a school place through to the age of 18 have had, or are about to have, that place taken away at the age of 11. Under the Lords amendment, which the Government tabled, the Secretary of State has extra discretion in respect of the operation of the assisted places scheme and the phasing out of that scheme. Will he now confirm that the Government will go away, consider the Lords


amendment in relation to the cases raised by parents who are greatly concerned about what is happening to their children because of the Government's broken pledges, and decide that those people who were given clear pledges by the Government will now have those pledges honoured at last?

Mr. Byers: I hope that I shall be able to clarify the position for the benefit of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Amendment No. 142 is the substantive amendment in this group, and I had thought that, when introducing the debate on the amendment, I had identified the circumstances in which the Secretary of State intended to exercise the new discretion that the amendment would give him.
What we said—it was said in the House of Lords as well, and I commend the comments made on this matter when the Government moved the amendment there—is that the specific situation that we have in mind is where a transfer will be made, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, horizontally—in other words, a child who already has an assisted place, perhaps for family reasons, needs to transfer to another school. In such circumstances, we felt it would be appropriate to have a discretion to continue that assisted place.
Amendment No. 142 is an enabling provision; it creates a new discretionary power. We shall have to produce regulations to show how we intend to exercise that power, and I had thought that I had already illustrated the circumstances in which we would exercise it. It is restricted solely to the circumstances I have described. One or two Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends who are not currently in the Chamber have raised constituency cases which we have considered. In the light of those cases, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed that the amendment should be tabled in the House of Lords. That is a very good demonstration of how, away from the fiery rhetoric of the Chamber, we act in response to particular cases to meet the needs of individual children.
This evening, we have had a rerun of the debate that we had last summer when we passed the Education (Schools) Act 1997. The Government's commitment to the phasing out of the assisted places scheme was made crystal clear in the run-up to the last election. Chapter and verse was given. Letters written by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 10 March do not countermand what was said in the run-up to the election, when our position was made clear.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way?

11 pm

Mr. Byers: No, because we have debated this matter on numerous occasions and the hon. Gentleman brings nothing new to the argument.
The House is aware of the arguments. We have the opportunity this evening to agree with the Lords amendment that will give the Secretary of State a discretionary power to use in accordance with regulations to apply to a small number of cases, in which, for compassionate reasons, young people should be allowed to move school and keep their assisted place. That makes sense. The Government are acting reasonably and compassionately, and I hope that, in that spirit, the House will agree to the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 122

DISSOLUTION OF FUNDING AGENCY FOR SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 143, in page 94, line 22, after ("Agency") insert
("to which subsection (5) applies")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 152, 170 to 174, 181, 351, 354, 355, 362 to 366, 368, 370 to 373, 376 to 382, 384, 385, 387, 390, 391, 393, 395, 396 and 398 to 403.

Mr. Byers: There will be considerably less passion in relation to this group of amendments. These are the kind of amendments that we have at the end of proceedings on a Bill. They are mainly technical, define various consequential measures and deal with repeals and other measures necessary as a result of the Bill's passage through the House of Lords. I hope that with limited debate, the House will be able to agree with the Lords amendments.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 144 to 152 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 153, after clause 129, to insert the following new clause—Minor authorities—

Construction

.—(1) For the purposes of this Act a maintained school serves an area for which there are one or more minor authorities if the area served by the school is—

(a) a parish or community;
(b) an area in England which is not within a parish and is not situated in—

(i) a county for which there is no council, or
(ii) a county in which there are no district councils; or


(c) an area comprising two or more areas each of which falls within paragraph (a) or (b)

(2) Where the area served by the school is parish—

(a) the parish council (if there is one), or
(b) the parish meeting (if there is no parish council),

is the minor authority in relation to the school.

(3) Where the area served by the school is a community, the community council is the minor authority in relation to the school.

(4) Where the area served by the school is an area falling within subsection (1)(b), any district council for the whole or part of the area is a minor authority in relation to the school.

(5) Where the area served by the school is an area falling within subsection (1)(c), each of the relevant authorities is a minor authority in relation to the school.

(6) In subsection (5) "the relevant authorities" means the bodies which, if the two or more constituent areas referred to in subsection (1)(c) were taken separately, would be minor authorities in relation to the school.

(7) References in this section to the area served by a school are references to the area appearing to the local education authority to be served by the school.")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 168 and 178,


Lords amendments Nos. 237 to 240 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, and Lords amendment No. 244 and the Government amendment in lieu.

Mr. Byers: We agree with the Lords in amendments Nos. 153, 168 and 178, which make technical changes on minor authority provisions, and complement the Government amendment. I urge the House to disagree with amendments Nos. 238, 239, 240 and 244 on minor authority representation on school governing bodies. We have tabled our own amendments, which we believe meet the concerns that were expressed on this issue by the House of Lords.
Minor authorities have been campaigning for the automatic right to representation on community and voluntary primary school governing bodies. The Government's amendment meets those concerns. When a school serves more than one minor authority area, the governing body will retain the right to decide which minor authority should be represented. The key difference is that there must be a minor authority representative on the governing body.
In line with the amendment, we propose to make an additional co-opted place available for the minor authority nominee. However, we believe that the minor authority representation should continue through a co-opted member of the school governing body. Our amendment provides for a minor authority nominee to be an additional governor appointed by the existing school governors, who are not co-opted.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I must confess to ignorance in this matter, so perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to enlighten me. Is there a limit to the size of governing bodies? That is important, because some minor authorities will have difficulty finding people to shoulder the responsibility of being a governor. We certainly do not want to arrive at a situation where the space is effectively vacant but governing bodies are statutorily obliged to provide it.

Mr. Byers: No. Minor authorities will have to nominate individuals, and it will then be for the individual school governing body to decide who should be co-opted on to that governing body. We have taken the view that that should occur via a co-option route rather than by booking up one of the places on the existing school governing body. That would have the consequence to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
This is a new mechanism, which is already in the Bill, for authorising or requiring additional co-opted governors who are nominated by particular categories of persons in specified circumstances. We are building on a provision that is already in the Bill. When schools serve more than one minor authority area—there are occasions when they do—this measure has the significant advantage of allowing the governing body to decide who the appropriate minor authority representative should be. We believe that it is right for the school to make that decision as it is in the best position to know who can best serve, the interests of the minor authority locally.
We have listened to the concerns of minor authorities and to concerns expressed in the House of Lords. I believe that the Government amendment will ensure that

minor authorities get the place that is reserved for them, which was their key objective. We believe that the school governing body should select the minor authority representative. We do not agree with the view expressed in another place that the minor authority representative should automatically and exclusively be from the minor authority where the school is located. Many schools may be located just outside the area from where the majority of children come. In those circumstances, a minor authority that is responsible for the well-being of those children will feel aggrieved if the place is reserved solely for the minor authority where the school is located.
The amendment tabled by the Government in the House of Lords allows all minor authorities to submit names to be considered by the school governing body. It will then be for the school governing body to identify which of the minor authority nominees should take up the co-opted position on the school governing body. We believe that that is a sensible approach. It builds on the approach taken in the House of Lords, but in a more practical and effective manner. It will work in practice.

Mr. Luff: Will a school be obliged to take a nomination, if one is forthcoming, from a minor authority, or will it have the discretion to say, "No; we don't like this nomination and we will not have a minor authority representative"?

Mr. Byers: In line with the amendments tabled in the House of Lords and the Government amendment before us, the minor authority will be able to nominate an individual, and there will be a requirement on the school governing body to select one of those nominated by the minor authority. That is how we can meet the objective to have a minor authority place on a primary school governing body. The governing body will be required to co-opt one of the individuals nominated by the minor authorities.
We feel that the Government amendment tabled tonight meets the concerns expressed in another place, and those expressed by many town and parish councils throughout the country, which value the fact that they have representatives on primary school governing bodies. We have listened to representations from many hon. Members. I have written literally hundreds of letters on the issue. There has been a very effective lobbying campaign, without employing lobbyists as such. Probably there is a lesson there for many people—but I must be careful what we say on these issues.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman on message?

Mr. Byers: No, my pager has not started vibrating on my waistband.

Dr. Julian Lewis: It will.

Mr. Byers: We do have 24-hour monitoring, so the hon. Gentleman may well be right. I believe that I was responsible for introducing that monitoring, so I must be careful what I say.
We believe that the amendment tabled by the Government meets the concerns that have been expressed, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House


have drawn our attention. We have listened to those representations. I hope that the House can agree with the amendment that has been tabled tonight, which we believe will build on the decisions taken in the House of Lords.

Mr. Key: Regrettably, I am not convinced by what the Minister has just told the House. I had hoped, as I watched the Bill's progress through the other place, that I would be convinced.
As recently as yesterday, I received a telephone call from the chairman of the Wiltshire association of local councils. I must declare an interest, in that I have the honour to be the president of that association. On Friday, in Devizes town hall, we shall have our annual general meeting, for which this subject is an agenda item.
I have been asked to express at that meeting the opinion, which I share, that there is still a tremendous amount of disquiet among parish and town councils about the fact that the tradition that we are discussing has been stood on its head for no apparent reason. In fact, many of us believe that the Government sleep-walked into this without realising what was happening, and that, when they noticed, they tried to dig their way out. They dug their way out with a fudge, and that fudge simply will not do. I regret that, but I shall report to the Wiltshire association of local councils what has happened in the House tonight, and let the Minister know what it decides.
I regret very much that, at this late hour, at this late stage of the Bill's passage, it has not been possible for the Government to abide by the well-tried maxim, "If it ain't bust, don't fix it."

Mr. Willis: We welcome the movement that the Government have made to recognise the genuine concerns, especially of parish councils, about their automatic representation on governing bodies, especially small village schools. For instance, in my constituency, in Knaresborough, the town council has nomination rights on the governing body of King James school. It values those rights very greatly.
The village where I live includes Rufforth primary school, where I was a governor and the chair of governors for many years. It is a very small school, with fewer than 40 students. The parish council has a very close relationship with it. At times, money was hard to come by—although there will be rejoicing in the streets tonight, in the street party, with all the new money going into the school. When money was hard to come by, when the school needed security lights because equipment was constantly stolen, the parish council came to the rescue. [Interruption.] It was the only one that was not charge-capped. The parish council had a representative on the governing body. The governing body was able to argue its case before the parish council, and the latter was able to help.
The Department has recently given King James school, Knaresborough, technology school status. The bid for technology school status was based partly on the fact that the town council of Knaresborough was prepared to make a significant donation from local taxes to support the school.
Those are two excellent examples of the sort of relationship that exists. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is right—if it is not broken, why should the Government fix it? It has worked extremely well,

especially in rural areas. People have prized the relationship between the parish or town council and their local schools, and we want it to be preserved.
Amendment No. 153, which was introduced in the Lords, was an excellent amendment. It met the concerns of the House. We do not see why, simply because the Government did not agree with it in the first place, they should not accept it. It would be extremely gracious at this late hour, on the last group of amendments, if the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box and said that the matter was not worth fighting over and that the Government would concede.
Thousands of parish councillors have lobbied through their associations. Like the hon. Member for Salisbury, my local association has lobbied me. This is the only issue on which the Yorkshire association of local councils has lobbied me over the past year—the association still thinks that I am a Conservative. When I addressed its conference in Scarborough recently, it was the one major issue about which the association felt strongly.
The need for flexibility must be recognised. The Minister is right to say that we need flexibility on these matters, but his approach is wrong. He is saying, in effect, that there could be nominations from a number of parish councils for the one place that is available, and the school would then choose. Is that the sort of democracy about which we are talking? If the parish councils had to get together to make that one nomination, as has happened in the past, that would be real local democracy working to choose the best person.
I hope that the Minister will agree that, on this occasion, he has got it slightly wrong, and that it would be better to allow Lords amendment No. 153 to proceed.

Mrs. Browning: I hope that the Minister listened carefully to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Like him, I am concerned that, although the Minister seems to have made a concession tonight, it is not clear how or why the Government have changed their mind. When we discussed in Committee an amendment similar to the Lords amendment, it was clear that the Government's policy was driven by different priorities. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who led for the Government in the debate, stated:
We shall…encourage local authorities to consider using one of their appointees from a minor authority if they have room to do so.
He also said:
I agree that in some circumstances, it may be appropriate for LEAs to appoint minor authority nominees as their representatives—to use up their allocation by bringing on parish, town or community council representatives."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 February 1998; c. 427–28.]
It was clearly in the Government's mind in Standing Committee that that was to be just a sopping-up of spare places at an LEA's behest, if it happened to have any. The Under-Secretary said that parish and town councillors would have to earn their place, which caused great disquiet and offence among parish councillors.
In my constituency of Tiverton and Honiton, we have scattered rural communities with parish councils that for generations have had a close working relationship with the local village primary school.
I am sorry that the Minister stated in his opening remarks that he would not accept amendments Nos. 238, 239 and 240. It has never been clear how the Government arrived at their policy. Originally we suggested that it was an omission, but it is evidently a deliberate policy to remove from locally democratically elected representatives at town and parish level a relationship with their local schools that has existed for generations and is valued in the community where it exists.
When the Minister reached his decision about the policy, why did he not follow customary practice and organise a consultation? It came as a shock and a blow to parish and town councils to learn that the Government intended to remove arbitrarily their right to represent their local councils, particularly in the case of rural primary schools.

Mr. David Heath: I may be wrong, but I think that the hon. Lady's area—like mine in Somerset—has a system of community designation, which applies to community schools even at primary level. Does she agree that there is something very curious about having a community designation for a school but not having the community represented on the governing body? That close relationship needs to be maintained if community designation is to mean anything.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Indeed, the Secretary of State said in the introduction to his White Paper:
Partnership for change means commitment from everyone, from the family and from the wider community".
As the hon. Gentleman has just said, the parish council and the village school are at the heart of small rural parishes and communities: indeed, it could be said that the whole community revolves around them. That has been accepted for generations.
Although the Minister has appeared to make a few concessions as a result of the Lords amendments, I ask him to look again at the amendments that we are discussing. If his Government are serious about the role of rural communities and the role of democratic representation at the lowest level in such communities, he must surely see that for the Government to step in and wipe away democratic representation that has existed for generations is an act of arrogance that will not be forgiven or forgotten—certainly not in the rural communities in my constituency.

Mrs. May: The Government have produced what they claim to be concessions in relation to some of the amendments. We are pleased that they have been willing to move some distance on the issue of minor authority representation on governing bodies, but—as has others have pointed out—they have not moved far enough.
I shall want to test the House's opinion on the motion to disagree with Lords amendments Nos. 237 to 240, which would reinstate the right of a parish or town council to have a representative on the local governing body. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made clear, the Government opposed that right in Committee. Considerable offence was caused by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon.

Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he said that, in future, representation must be earned. The implication was that parish council representatives on governing bodies had been "passengers"—that they had not taken their role seriously, and had not contributed to their local communities.
Like many other hon. Members, I have been contacted by parish council organisations, and, indeed, by parish councils in my constituency. Cox Green parish council, for example, referred to
an important connection within the local community".
Wargrave parish council wrote:
Local schools are an important part of the community and this link ensures that the community can participate in the decision making of each governing body.
Ruscombe parish council said:
the local Parish Councils have the feelings of the community at heart, from ground level, and their views should have a voice.
Woodley town council said:
Schools in Woodley play a key role in the community and the Town Council has an opportunity to offer support on many issues through its nominated governors.
Sonning parish council said:
The Council believes that by having representatives on the governing body it is in a unique position to assist the school in achieving many of its aims.
Those councils have earned the right to be represented on governing bodies. They earn it at every governing body meeting that they attend. They earn it through their contributions to the life of local schools. They earn it through the contribution that their position on the school governing body makes to the life of the local community. That is important for local communities.
The Government's initial proposal to abandon the right of parish councils to an appointed position on governing bodies was another blow aimed at our village and rural communities throughout the country, like so many others that we have seen from the Government. They do not understand local communities, as their amendments show. They have moved some way, but they have not gone as far as they need to on reinstating the current right that has been exercised well in villages and towns throughout the country. That link is an important element at the heart of our local communities. It should stay in its entirety in the way in which it has been operating for generations.
The right of parish and town councils to representation on school governing bodies enables them to play an important role at the heart of their community, together with their local schools, and should be reinstated. That is why I wish to divide the House on the Government's disagreement with the Lords amendments.

Mr. Byers: It might help the House if I go through some facts behind the amendments. We need to be clear about the consequences of not agreeing with the Government motions. The Opposition amendments carried in the House of Lords against Government advice would remove rights currently enjoyed by hundreds of minor authorities. They would give nomination rights only to the minor authority in which the school was located. All other minor authorities, which are currently involved in a joint appointment of a minor authority representative, would be denied that role. It is untrue to say that the Conservatives are protecting the interests of


town and parish councils throughout the country. They want to deny involvement to hundreds of town and parish councils in deciding who should be on governing bodies.

Mr. James Paice: So do the Government.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read our amendment, which will allow minor authorities to nominate a governor. There will be a minor authority entitlement for every school. Our definition of parish and town councils includes Welsh community councils, which the amendments carried by the Conservatives in the House of Lords do not. Any hon. Member who votes against disagreeing with amendments Nos. 237 to 240, on which I understand that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) will seek a vote, will be voting to deny Welsh community councils a place on primary school governing bodies. The Liberal Democrats should be particularly aware of that. I think that they were about to support the Conservatives.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) say that it was important that minor authorities should decide who their representatives should be. It is true that minor authorities can agree whom they should nominate, but, at the moment, if they fail to do so, which does happen, the Secretary of State decides. If agreement is not reached, surely it is far better that the school governing body decides. That is exactly what the Government amendment proposes.

Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation; I wish that he had made it very much earlier. Have I understood correctly that, under the Government amendment, it is possible for more than one minor authority to agree on the single preferred nomination, and that that would have to be accepted by the school?

Mr. Byers: I am pleased to be able to confirm that that will be so. Such a nomination will be entitled to a minor authority place on the school governing body. If only one nominee comes forward on behalf of those minor authorities, that will be the place that will be co-opted on to the school governing body. The Government have thought long and hard about the proposals before the House.

Mrs. May: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Byers: I should be delighted to try to enlighten the hon. Lady further.

Mrs. May: The answer that the Minister has just given goes against—if I heard him correctly—what he said earlier. If two minor authorities do not agree a single nomination, is it not up to the school to determine which of the minor authorities will have the place on the governing body—not the minor authorities themselves?

Mr. Byers: I am afraid that this is restating the obvious. If the minor authorities cannot agree, someone has to decide on their behalf. At the moment, the Secretary of State decides. The Lords amendments would allow that to

continue. I am sorry, that is not correct; minor authorities can no longer nominate their own people. The nomination is left to the minor authority where the school is situated. The Government motions will allow minor authorities to agree who their nominees should be. If agreement is reached, the nominated person will take a place on the school governing body. If agreement is not reached, it will be for the school governing body to select who that nominee should be.

Mr. Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting the Minister for a second time. He gave me a clear explanation a minute ago. I draw his attention specifically to the proposed sub-paragraph (4) in the Government amendment in lieu, which states:
Where any such school serves an area for which there are two or more minor authorities, the relevant governors shall, for the purposes of the appointment of any such co-opted governor, seek nominations from such one or more of those authorities as the governors think fit.
That seems to be in marked contrast to his response a few minutes ago.

Mr. Byers: No, it will be for the minor authorities to respond to the governing body's invitation to nominate. If there is agreement among the minor authorities, one nominee will come forward, and they will be the person who will be entitled to sit on the school governing body.
The House needs to be clear that the choice is either to agree with amendments from the House of Lords or to agree with the amendment and motions tabled by the Government. Hon. Members who vote to agree with the House of Lords will be denying a place for Welsh community councils and for hundreds of town and parish councils. When the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) goes to his meeting in Devizes on Friday evening, I think that he will find that town and district councils welcome the Government motions, and are deeply unhappy about the proposals of Conservatives in the House of Lords.
These are reasoned and responsible proposals that provide an entitlement for minor authorities on a school governing body. They do not deny a role for literally hundreds of town and parish councils, as the Conservative proposals would. On that basis, I commend the motions and Government amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 154 to 197 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 198 disagreed to, and Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words so restored agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 199 disagreed to, and Government amendment to the words so restored agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 200 to 236 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9

CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNING BODIES

Lords amendment: No. 237, in page 138, line 20, at end insert—

Minor authority governor

In this Schedule "minor authority governor" means a governor appointed by the town or parish council or parish meeting which covers the locality of any community primary school, any voluntary controlled primary school or any voluntary aided primary school.")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Mr. Byers.]

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 130.

Division No. 339]
[11.36 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cummings, John


Alexander, Douglas
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allan, Richard
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Darvill, Keith


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Atkins, Charlotte
Davidson, Ian


Banks, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Bayley, Hugh
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Beard, Nigel
Dean, Mrs Janet


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dismore, Andrew


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dobbin, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Benton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Bermingham, Gerald
Doran, Frank


Best, Harold
Dowd, Jim


Betts, Clive
Drew, David


Blackman, Liz
Efford, Clive


Blears, Ms Hazel
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fisher, Mark


Borrow, David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Flynn, Paul


Bradshaw, Ben
Follett, Barbara


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Buck, Ms Karen
Foulkes, George


Burden, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Burgon, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Byers, Stephen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Caborn, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Goggins, Paul


Canavan, Dennis
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cann, Jamie
Gorrie, Donald


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hanson, David



Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hesford, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coleman, Iain
Home Robertson, John


Colman, Tony



Connarty, Michael



Cooper, Yvette



Corbett, Robin



Corbyn, Jeremy



Cotter, Brian



Cousins, Jim



Cox, Tom



Cranston, Ross



Crausby, David



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)






Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Hara, Eddie


Hope, Phil
Olner, Bill


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Öpik, Lembit


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pearson, Ian


Howells, Dr Kim
Pickthall, Colin


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pike, Peter L


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pollard, Kerry


Hurst, Alan
Pond, Chris


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pound, Stephen


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prosser, Gwyn



Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Rammell, Bill



Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rendel, David


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Keeble, Ms Sally
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rowlands, Ted


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ruane, Chris


Keetch, Paul
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Kemp, Fraser
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Khabra, Piara S
Sanders, Adrian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Savidge, Malcolm


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sawford, Phil


Kingham, Ms Tess
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheerman, Barry


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Laxton, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Leslie, Christopher
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Linton, Martin
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Lock, David
Snape, Peter


Love, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McAllion, John
Spellar, John


McAvoy, Thomas
Squire, Ms Rachel


McCabe, Steve
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McDonnell, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McFall, John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McIsaac, Shona
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McNulty, Tony
Stringer, Graham


MacShane, Denis
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stunell, Andrew


McWalter, Tony
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mallaber, Judy
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mandelson, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Timms, Stephen


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Touhig, Don


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Truswell, Paul


Martlew, Eric
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Michael, Alun
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Milburn, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Miller, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Mitchell, Austin
Watts, David


Moffatt, Laura
Webb, Steve


Moran, Ms Margaret
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)



Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Mudie, George
Willis, Phil


Mullin, Chris
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Wise, Audrey






Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Wray, James
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gill, Christopher


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Arbuthnot, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gray, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Green, Damian


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, John


Beggs, Roy
Grieve, Dominic


Bercow, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Blunt, Crispin
Hammond, Philip


Body, Sir Richard
Hawkins, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Hayes, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Heald, Oliver


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Horam, John


Brady, Graham
Hunter, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jenkin, Bernard


Butterfill, John
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William



Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Key, Robert



Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Chope, Christopher
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clappison, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Leigh, Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Letwin, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lidington, David


Cran, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Loughton, Tim


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Luff, Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Nigel
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Madel, Sir David


Fallon, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Flight, Howard
Maples, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fox, Dr Liam
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fraser, Christopher
May, Mrs Theresa


Garnier, Edward
Moss, Malcolm


Gibb, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick





Norman, Archie
Syms, Robert


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paterson, Owen
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Pickles, Eric
Townend, John


Prior, David
Tredinnick, David


Randall, John
Trend, Michael


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tyrie, Andrew


Robathan, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Walter, Robert


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wardle, Charles


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wells, Bowen


Ruffley, David
Whittingdale, John


St Aubyn, Nick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wilkinson, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Willetts, David


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Nicholas
Woodward, Shaun


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Sir Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Stephen Day and


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 238 to 240 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 241 to 243 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 244 disagreed to.

Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 237 to 240 and 244 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 245 to 411 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Stephen Byers, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. David Jamieson, Mrs. Theresa May and Ms Rachel Squire; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]

Lords amendment considered.

Clause 20

TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Lords amendment in lieu of an amendment to which the Commons have disagreed: in page 15, line 40, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State shall, not later than six months after the passing of this Act, appoint an independent body to review the arrangements for England and Wales relating to the payment of grants in respect of fees payable in connection with attendance on the final honours year of first degree courses at higher education institutions in Scotland.
(5) The Secretary of State shall invite—

(a) the Scottish higher education principals,
(b) the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and
(c) such other bodies as he considers appropriate,

to make representations to the body established under subsection (4); and the report of that body shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than 1st April 2000.
(6) If that body recommends that the arrangements referred to in subsection (4) should be modified in accordance with this subsection, the Secretary of State may modify those arrangements so as to secure that they are no less favourable than the arrangements made by regulations under section 73(f) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 for the payment of allowances in respect of fees payable as mentioned in subsection (4).
(7) In subsections (4) and (6) any reference to the arrangements for England and Wales is a reference to arrangements made either under the Education Act 1962 or under section 19 of this Act.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I inform the House that the Lords amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill involves privilege.

Dr. Howells: I pay tribute to the constructive approach adopted by the other place yesterday in seeking a resolution to the disagreement between the two Houses. That approach was shown by peers of all parties, and I hope that it will be replicated here.

Mr. David Willetts: Sweetness and light.

Dr. Howells: It is always sweetness and light from me.
We have discussed many times the arrangements for financial support for fees for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the fourth or final year of an honours degree course in Scotland. When the House last considered the Bill, on Monday evening, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an undertaking, with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, to set up an independent review of those arrangements early next year.
Following a helpful proposal from the Liberal Democrats in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone tabled the amendment yesterday to give effect to the independent review proposed by my right hon. Friend. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to set up an independent body within six months of enacting the Bill. Its report is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament by 1 April 2000. In practice, as my right hon. Friend made clear on Sunday, we expect the review to take place early next year. That is in line with our stated intention to monitor the effect of implementing the new policy of means testing grants for tuition fees.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has my hon. Friend a date for the choice of a chairman for the review body?

Dr. Howells: No. The composition of the committee has not yet been agreed by the House, but, as soon as it is, we shall seek an appropriate chair extremely quickly.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Minister said that the report would be laid before both Houses of this Parliament, but responsibility for higher education in Scotland will lie with the Scottish Parliament. Will the report be laid before the Scottish Parliament? Who will be in charge of the results of the review?

Dr. Howells: I take it that that would be a decision at that time for the people of Scotland. Until then, we have to lay before this Parliament the details of the amendment, and that is what I am trying to do. I do not intend to engage in a constitutional debate with anybody at this time of night.
The amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to invite representations from the parties most closely concerned, most notably the principals of Scottish higher education institutions and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, but also such other bodies as he considers appropriate, perhaps including political parties. The bodies invited to make representations will no doubt include the full range of interests, including, of course, students. However, it will be open to anyone, including any individual who has a relevant interest in the matter, to make representations to the review body.
We intend the review to be fully independent. Of course, it will be for the body itself to decide how to conduct its business, but clearly its purpose will be to review the arrangements for fee support for students in the fourth or final honours year of first degree courses at higher education institutions in Scotland. We envisage that the review will want to take particular account of evidence on applications and admissions to four-year and longer courses in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in 1998–99 and the early evidence on applications to such courses for 1999–2000. That will allow for all the evidence to be assessed, including the impact on Scottish universities.
As my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone made clear yesterday, it will be a serious and fully independent review. We believe that it offers a way forward through the impasse that we were facing in the other place, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Willetts: This may be the end of the intense debate in both Houses on this subject—we do not have the same


intensity tonight because, thank heavens, a compromise has been reached, and I will not delay the House with a post-match analysis of exactly how that happened.
It is a pleasure to have the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) speaking on this subject. Perhaps if he had been handling it, in place of the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, we would not have got into quite such a mess.
Now that the Under-Secretary of State is here, perhaps he can clarify three points. First, will he say what he means by the independence of the body? We understand the assurances that have been given on independence, and it would be helpful to know how, for example, he will set about selecting the chairman, as there was a pertinent intervention on that point. If he can tell us any more about the chairman, the composition and the proposals for setting up the body, we shall be grateful.
Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will repeat the assurance given in the House of Lords by Baroness Blackstone, which was crucial in securing the compromise, that, even though the amendment stated that the Secretary of State "may" change the regulations, in practice
this will be about the strongest 'may' that Members of your Lordships' House have ever seen…I reiterate that this is a very strong 'may'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 127–28.]
If the Minister catches your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will he repeat the words that had such an effect in the debate in the other place and which are so important? They establish that the Secretary of State will not merely have a theoretical power to deal with the Scottish anomaly. If the independent commission shows—as we and hon. Members representing many other parties believe that it will—that the anomaly is affecting student applications to Scottish universities, in the light of the words used by the Minister in the House of Lords we will regard the Government as under a clear moral obligation to act on that evidence.
Finally, can the Minister confirm that the issue remains live, because he has the power—it will be in the statute—to end the Scottish anomaly? If evidence is compelling that it is affecting behaviour, as we fear it will, and if the universities and students of Scotland carry on campaigning on the issue, the amendment will give him the power to get rid of that anomaly.

Mr. Dalyell: I have no doubt that the Minister, like the Secretary of State, has acted in good faith. It is clear from what he said tonight, and from what the Secretary of State said to a group meeting, that they are serious. However, may I impress on the Minister that the matter is urgent? At the university of Dundee, a distinguished university with five-star ratings for biochemistry and other subjects, applications are down by 14 per cent. It is late, so I will say no more.

12 midnight

Mr. Willis: The Liberal Democrats are also pleased that common sense has prevailed, and that some of what we want has been achieved. The amendment does not go far enough, and we would rather that an unacceptable proposal had been defeated. However, once Lord Cranborne had made it clear that Conservative peers were

not prepared to defeat the Government, a settlement had to be found, and an honourable settlement was found. The universities—in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom—required certainty before the summer recess about how to deal with fees in October. At least they can now begin to plan.
The whole battle was entirely unnecessary. If the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, had not taken such an aggressive stance in and out of the House, the matter could have been settled some time ago. There was no reason why we could not have included the amendment on Report when it became clear that the Scottish question would not be easily resolved.
The Minister's opposition became more and more bizarre as time went on. He became more and more desperate, attacking vice-chancellors and rich English students. He accused Scottish universities of running a bogus system. When all else failed, we had to resort to the constitution. Tonight, the Minister is undoubtedly in Scotland, having a wee dram and relaxing while the rest of us deal with the matter.
I cannot believe that the committee that will hear evidence will do anything other than confirm the feelings of the House and of the other place that the Government's proposal would do irreparable damage to the structure of Scottish universities, particularly by affecting the broad spectrum of students who go to Scotland from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the rest of the European Union. Lord Callaghan made the most telling remark yesterday, when he told Baroness Blackstone that, if the committee says that the proposal will do damage, the Government had better listen. We hope that that message has got through, and that whoever replaces the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office in the reshuffle will be a listening Minister.

Mr. Welsh: It is after the midnight hour, and the tuition fees issue is sneaking through late at night after all the votes and speeches. Perhaps that is appropriate.
I have asked before that the situation be monitored because I was concerned about it. The Government's view meets that need, although it comes after the damage was done. I should prefer the tuition fees measures to be dropped altogether, a case that I have argued consistently. However, the Government have been reduced to offering us a review, which is better than nothing. I am glad to say that the issue will eventually be decided by the new Scottish Parliament.
Will the review be extended to cover further as well as higher education? The effects on applications will be felt throughout the system. If the Government are going to the trouble of gathering personnel, giving administrative back-up and taking evidence from all over Scotland, why not extend the review's scope to cover the effect of student loans on admissions and the lives of students? All those factors will be at play in Scotland's education system because of the Government's policy.
I maintain my view that the Government are fundamentally wrong on the issue. They are out of step with people in Scottish education and with the general public in Scotland. Only time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I hope that no damage will be done to Scotland's higher education system. I remain opposed to this unnecessary discrimination by the Government against English, Northern Irish and Welsh students who


want to do Scottish honours degree courses. Happily, the issue will be passed to the new Scottish Parliament, whose decision will be final. I am sure that it will be fairer and more enlightened in wishing to end such discrimination. The issue should never have arisen. A sensible Government would never have allowed it to happen.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Compromise is not an activity in which Ulster Unionists readily engage, but I am happy to welcome this solution on behalf of my colleagues. I am confident that those who engage in the review will eventually arrive at a solution that we could have arrived at a long time ago.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm the rumour that it is likely that a court case will be initiated by people in Belfast angry that they will have to pay £1,000 more than those coming from Dublin?

Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman makes an appropriate intervention. With the ease of access to legal aid that has been abused so well in Northern Ireland, such litigation is not unlikely. I am confident that the review will reach a satisfactory conclusion that will ensure that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland are treated equitably compared with those in Scotland. I await the outcome of the review.

Dr. Howells: I found the comments of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) helpful and constructive, as were those of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and, in their way, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh). I do not

think that, by any means, we can say that this is being sneaked through. It may be late, but that is to do with the daft way in which the House works. It is nothing to do with a lack of debate. As the hon. Member for Havant said, the subject has been debated more intensely than any other that I can recall in recent times.
I sense from what was said not only a constructive attitude but a determination to get it right. We will try to get the committee right and to make it representative, and we will try to do it quickly. That is vital.

Mr. Dalyell: Before litigation, if possible.

Dr. Howells: The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) is not aware yet that litigation hangs over us like a sword, so I shall wait until he tells me before I start worrying about it.
The key words are "may" and "shall". Lord Callaghan was right. Any Government who did not listen to the recommendations of the committee which will look seriously at what is, after all, revolutionary legislation, and its effects, would rightly be condemned as insensitive and uncaring, and we would deserve those titles. [Interruption.] We will accept it. We will not be tied to anything, because no Government should agree to that. We will look very closely at the recommendations of any committee, and we will take it seriously.

Lords amendment agreed to.[Special Entry.].

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Northern Ireland Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Edgar Fernandes

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Mr. Keith Vaz: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I thank you for allowing me to raise in the House the tragic case of Edgar Fernandes, a young British citizen who met his death in mysterious circumstances in Turkey. I also want to highlight the plight of families involved in tracing their loved ones.
Hon. Members may remember the extensive media coverage of the disappearance of Edgar Fernandes, who went missing in Turkey in April. They may also remember the outrage that followed the discovery of Edgar's body in a Turkish mortuary a full month after he had disappeared.
Edgar was a librarian at Hackney council who grew up in my constituency in Leicester, where his mother and father still live, although he was born in Kenya and lived for a short while in Goa. He was murdered in Turkey. The man suspected of carrying out his murder was then arrested in Malta after Edgar's passport had been used to enter Bulgaria and Greece. Edgar's tragedy is therefore a truly international story. In fact, had it not happened, it could easily have been dismissed as a work of fiction.
I was approached by his family to take up his case. His local Member of Parliament at the time of his death was my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the Secretary of State for Health. My right hon. Friend has asked to be associated with everything that has been done on behalf of the family.
Edgar was a very popular and gentle person, supported by his strong and closely knit family—his two brothers and three sisters—as well as a huge network of friends. The grief at his death was widespread. Numerous people paid tributes at his funeral and, as a result of public demand, a book of condolence was opened at the library where he worked. I want to pay tribute tonight to the painstaking and relentless campaign that Edgar's family and friends have mounted in order to obtain justice. May I acknowledge the love and devotion of his brothers and sisters—Genny, Matthias, Mary, Fatima and Mario—and of Tony Fernandes, Krishna Maharaj, Sophia and Andy Mesfin, Jerome Carasco, Chris Broadhead and Evelyn Teichmann.
I want tonight to highlight the reasons why the family feel that they must get more support from the authorities, especially as more and more Britons now go abroad on holiday. Britons travel abroad in the expectation that they will be protected and that, if they are attacked or murdered, the authorities in those countries will take appropriate action. The Fernandes family have conducted a mammoth investigation to trace the suspect and to uncover what happened to Edgar. In fact, almost all the evidence in the case has been carefully uncovered by the family and has been passed to Turkish Interpol, the British embassy in Turkey and the Foreign Office.
Edgar left for a week's holiday to Turkey on 8 April 1998. When he failed to return, his family alerted his local police station in Camden. The police officer suspected that he had run away from the family, and tried to probe the family's history.
Frustrated with that attitude, the family appealed to the Foreign Office to help. The Foreign Office told the family that it would alert the British consulate in Istanbul, and that any further measures would have to be taken by the police. The family were unable to rely on the authorities, who were slow to deal with the case, and were forced to mount their own investigation with the help of Edgar's friends. They formed two investigative teams; they possessed hardly any formal experience in investigation work, and were armed with only a passionate determination to identify what had happened to Edgar.
The family and friends took time off work, and one team flew to Turkey while another was based in London to exert pressure on the authorities here. Within weeks, in an impressive and unprecedented feat, they had located Edgar's belongings and medication in the hotel room. Their presence, steadfast determination and passion appeared to galvanise the embassy officials into action. Although the officials allocated to the case did their best within their limited power, the family believe that the case could have been given a higher priority by the consul general.

Mr. Steve McCabe: My point is that time is of the essence. As I understand it, the suspected murderer of Edgar Fernandes is being held in custody by the authorities in Malta. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the British authorities and police act now, there is every prospect of being able to put sufficient pressure on the Turkish authorities to deal appropriately with the suspect? Otherwise, he is likely to slip through the net, like so many others who have been associated with the disappearance of British citizens in Turkey over the past 10 years.

Mr. Vaz: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter; he is absolutely right to say that time is of the essence. Later in my speech, I shall suggest what the Government should do.
The family researched the hotel register and interviewed the guests, management and staff of the hotel. The result of that and other investigative work was that they managed to trace a suspect to Malta through Edgar's debit card expenditure. Armed with that evidence and the suspect's name, address and passport number, they went to Kentish Town police station expecting a positive response. Unfortunately, the officer looked at the evidence, consulted the file and reiterated the standard response that Edgar had run away from his family. His "gut feeling" was that Edgar had most probably now gone to Malta. How wrong he was.
The family began to believe that the officers's attitude had disturbing echoes of the case of Stephen Lawrence. By now, they were in despair. The obstructive attitude of some agencies, coupled with the bureaucratic attitude of others, led the family to request my help. They were extremely distraught and feared the worst. I was shocked and horrified by what had transpired, and I readily agreed to support the family. Meanwhile, the family and friends vigorously pursued the search in Turkey. The British consulate in Istanbul informed the family that no news was good news and that, had a British citizen been killed, it would be notified within two days.
The traumatic search continued. Edgar's brother Matthias stayed in Turkey and was joined by his cousin and a friend, believing that they could not rely on the


authorities to do the work. The family in the United Kingdom researched all the hospitals and mental institutions in Istanbul, produced leaflets carrying photographs of Edgar, translated them into Turkish and faxed them to all those institutions with a detailed description of Edgar in a desperate attempt to trace him. Family members in Turkey continued their meetings with Turkish Interpol, British embassy officials and hotel staff. They also visited the hospitals, police stations and mental institutions, but with no success. Having no time to search the prisons on their own, they decided to consult lawyers to do the same; unfortunately, the cost proved prohibitive.
On 8 May, I arranged a meeting for the family with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean. I thank my noble Friend for agreeing to see us. The family appealed to her to put pressure on Turkey to find Edgar and to implore the Turkish authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into the whole case. They also asked her to designate an official to follow the case through and galvanise all the authorities into action.
At the very time that we were meeting the Minister, the family in Turkey were looking at pictures of dead bodies in the morgue. Depressingly, one of the photographs was of Edgar's body. I was informed when I was on a train bound for my constituency, and I immediately returned to see the family in London.
The continuing campaign has prevented the family from grieving and mourning their brother and son. The unimaginable shock that must have befallen them can be little understood by those who have not gone through exactly the same experience. The family's hope that Edgar might still be alive lay in tatters, but there was more to endure. Imagine their horror when they discovered that their loved one had indeed been dead for a month and had lain carelessly in an Istanbul morgue decomposing—the same morgue that they had visited earlier, but to which they had been denied access.
Why was Edgar's body not found within the two-day limit that the embassy said was the norm? How did things go so tragically wrong? Why did not the Turkish authorities act immediately on the evidence produced? If Edgar's family had thought that matters could not get worse, they were to be bitterly disappointed.
The family decided to put aside their anguish and mourning, and to set up a campaign to demand justice for Edgar, in the hope that it might act as a catalyst and a precedent for other families in future.
A suspect was swiftly arrested in Malta. I pay tribute to the Maltese authorities for their co-operation and for acting on the evidence presented to them by the family. However, the fight for justice is not yet complete. Extradition papers from Turkey have still not arrived in Malta, and the suspect remains in custody there. Although the Foreign Office has sent a diplomatic message to Malta to keep the suspect in custody until the extradition order arrives, the Maltese have confirmed to the family that, as Malta is a democratic country, it has conduct of its own affairs within the boundaries of the law.
The campaign continues. A couple of weeks ago, the family decided to organise a vigil outside the Foreign Office, which was attended by nearly 100 people.
Trying to ensure that information flows freely between three countries has been a bureaucratic nightmare. British Interpol has said that it is "just a post office". The police have claimed that the primary responsibility is with the Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office has stated that it is the responsibility of Interpol to liaise with the authorities in Turkey. How can ordinary British families caught in this maze believe that they will ever get justice?
British Interpol has proved to be an insurmountable challenge—it is reluctant to help, and refuses to set aside bureaucratic rules even in the most tragic circumstances. On 8 May, the day that we went to see the Foreign Office Minister, someone in my office spoke to an official at Interpol to request a meeting. The subsequent conversation lasted an hour, as the official repeatedly went to his supervisor to seek guidance.
Later that day, at 3 pm, my staff spoke to Detective Superintendent Whiting, the head of Interpol London, and were told that a meeting between the family and Interpol was impossible and against the rules. It was clear that Detective Superintendent Whiting was unaware that, since the conversations earlier in the day, Edgar's body had been discovered. Those conversations illuminated the fact that we were dealing with an inflexible, inefficient organisation which was out of touch with ordinary people.
In the end, representatives of Interpol came to my office to meet me. I asked them to meet the family. There followed a version of musical rooms in Norman Shaw North, as they first refused, and eventually agreed, to meet members of the family.
There do not seem to be systems and procedures in place to trace British citizens who disappear abroad. What will the Minister do to ensure that families do not have to resort to flying out to those countries to get justice? If the Foreign Office is doing its job, why can it not inform us how many of the 174 people reportedly missing in Turkey have now been found?
I also arranged for the family to meet the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I have asked him to send a team of detectives to Turkey to review the investigation, as has happened in several cases involving British citizens murdered abroad. I thank him for agreeing to meet us. The family is hoping for a positive response in the near future.
During its investigation, the Edgar Fernandes campaign group uncovered evidence of another attack on an innocent British Asian person in Turkey in the same month. Dr Qureishi was brutally attacked and left for dead. Unfortunately, his family also had to resort to flying to Turkey in order to discover what had happened to him. He was finally found in a hospital. What steps will the Minister take to protect and safeguard Britons abroad?
During their investigation in Turkey, the family uncovered information that gangs appeared to be targeting British Asians for their passports, which, it was stated, were easy to forge. They were also informed that the passports could fetch up to £6,000 each. The Foreign Office has confirmed that the passport that belonged to Edgar Fernandes entered into Bulgaria and Greece. British passports with ethnic names can fetch the maximum price in Turkey and Edgar Fernandes has paid the ultimate price for that. If he had been given that information, the family are convinced that he would never have gone to Turkey on holiday. What steps will the Minister take to inform other Britons of the dangers posed to them?
The other principal concern in this tragic case is the lack of investigation since the family members have returned to the United Kingdom. Time erodes memories and evidence. The family were shocked to discover that no forensic evidence was collected, but cost implications preclude the family from returning to Turkey to press for more action. Will my hon. Friend continue the investigation and conclude what the family have already achieved? The British police have informed the family that they are not aware of any new information or evidence having been unearthed since their return from Turkey. I can deduce from this only that not all the leads given to the Turkish authorities have been followed through.
Furthermore, the Minister has assured us that the Foreign Office is actively following up the case. I appreciate the enormous burdens on the Foreign Office, but I have several specific requests, of which I have given my hon. Friend notice. Will he explain why the family have not been given a report on the progress of the investigation for more than a month? The lack of monitoring may seriously jeopardise the case. Will the Minister write to the Turkish authorities expressing his concerns and impressing on them the importance of following all leads and conducting a thorough investigation in order to bring the suspect to justice?
My constituents have the highest respect for the Turkish people, and have found most of them to be very helpful. They simply seek justice for Edgar. Will the Minister write to the British embassy in Istanbul to ask the consul general to give the case the highest priority? Will he also ask for the family to be provided with fortnightly reports on the investigation, and will he agree to meet the family in order to discuss the matter further?
I conclude by paying tribute again to the family and friends of Edgar Fernandes for their dedicated investigative effort and to my hon. Friends, many of whom have written letters of support. The family need the full support and backing of the Foreign Office, as well as of Interpol and the Home Office, in order to pursue the fight for justice. I call on the Minister to embrace the concerns that I have raised and to use them to fashion a constructive approach. Edgar, his family and the thousands of British holidaymakers who travel to Turkey deserve nothing less. Edgar Fernandes must be allowed to rest in peace.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I respect his strong commitment to his constituents' problems. Before I respond to the points that he has raised, I should like to express my condolences to the family of Mr. Fernandes.
The Government are fully committed to the protection of all British nationals travelling abroad. I am glad to be able to respond to the matter that my hon. Friend has raised by letting him know how the Government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our consular staff in Istanbul, Ankara and Valletta have acted. I begin by outlining the Foreign Office's knowledge of, and role in, the case. Then I hope to be able to take up the specific points that my hon. Friend identified as problematic.
Mr. Fernandes's family first contacted the Foreign Office consular division on 21 April 1998 to report Mr. Fernandes missing. Checks made through our consulate general in Istanbul showed that airport passport police had a record of his entry to Turkey on 8 April but no sign of departure. The family were advised by the Foreign Office to file a missing person's report with their local police station, which they did at Kentish Town police station on 22 April. Kentish Town police passed a message to Interpol UK the same day, which duly sent it to the Interpol bureau in Turkey. As the case progressed, the message was also passed to the bureaux in Egypt and Malta.
On 23 April, two members of the Fernandes family flew to Istanbul in the hope of tracing Mr. Fernandes. They contacted our consulate general staff who, on 27 April, asked the head prosecutor in Istanbul to investigate the disappearance as a matter of urgency. Members of our consular staff accompanied the family to hospitals in Istanbul and to a meeting with the deputy chief of police and the head of Interpol in Istanbul on 5 May.
It was not until 5 May that the Turkish authorities told our consulate general that they had a record of Mr. Fernandes's passport leaving Turkey at the Bulgarian border on 20 April. Further checks by our embassy in Sofia on 6 May showed that a person using that passport had entered Bulgaria by train from Turkey on 20 April and had left by foot at Kulhata on the Greek border on 21 April. Unfortunately, the Greek authorities do not keep records of European Union passport holders entering or leaving Greece. Mr. Fernandes's passport details have now been entered on a passport warning list, which means that anyone found using his passport, or trying to use it to apply for a visa, would be stopped.
On 8 May, the Turkish police showed a photograph of a body found on 10 April by the Bosphorus sea in Istanbul to a relative of Mr. Fernandes, who provisionally identified it. On 12 May, the relative saw the body and confirmed that it was the body of Edgar Fernandes.
I understand that, while he was staying in Istanbul, Mr. Fernandes shared a room at a guest-house with an Egyptian, Mr. Mohamed Abdal Monem Abbas Aly. Interpol and the family established that Mr. Aly left the guest house on 14 April and entered Malta on 16 April. Mr. Aly came further under suspicion with the discovery that Mr. Fernandes's credit card was used in Istanbul on 15 and 16 April and then in Malta on 22 April.
Our embassy in Cairo asked the Egyptian authorities for a photograph of Mr. Aly to assist in police investigations. Interpol UK was informed of Mr. Aly's arrest in Malta on 11 May, where he has been charged with fraud and immigration offences. Mr. Aly subsequently admitted to being responsible for Mr. Fernandes's death. That information was passed to the Fernandes family through Kentish Town police.
In relation to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East, let me tell him that, in the past few days, the Turkish authorities have made a formal request to the Maltese authorities for Mr. Aly's extradition to Turkey to stand trial for Mr. Fernandes's murder. The Turkish authorities informed Interpol UK of that request.
Our missions in Ankara and Valletta have pressed the Turkish and Maltese authorities to deal with the extradition request quickly and to bring matters to a


speedy conclusion. In particular, our mission in Valletta has sought the assurance of the Maltese Government that Mr. Mohamed Abdal Monem Abbas Aly would not be deported until the extradition request from Turkey had been received and duly considered by the competent Maltese authority. We continue to press both the Turkish and the Maltese authorities to deal with the case expeditiously.
A number of questions were asked; I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East for giving me notice of them. First, it was suggested that the case could have been given a higher priority by the consul general. I want to make it clear that it is always a matter of judgment how best to deal with those matters, but I can assure the House that the consul general has been active in seeking justice for the Fernandes family. As I said, the consul general has been active over a period of many weeks in contacting the Turkish authorities, often daily, in seeking to persuade them to process extradition proceedings in Malta—something that they have now done—and in assisting the Fernandes family on their visits to Turkey.
Secondly, my hon. Friend suggested that the British police could have done more to help the Fernandes family. However, as the crime was committed in Turkey, it is primarily a matter for the Turkish police. As I explained to the House, the family was advised by the Foreign Office to file a missing persons report at the local police station, which it did on 22 April.
On the same day, the Kentish Town police informed Interpol UK of the situation and subsequently informed the Interpol bureau in Turkey. In addition, before there was an identification of Mr. Fernandes, the Metropolitan police offered to try to obtain fingerprints from his London home if that would assist the identification.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend suggested that the British Government had not done enough to help to trace British citizens who disappear abroad. I can assure the House that, regardless of the background to any case, the Foreign Office takes extremely seriously any report of a missing British citizen. Attempts to identify the location of missing persons are given priority, and practical steps are taken, as was the case when Mr. Fernandes was reported missing.
A fourth point is that a number of British nationals who have been reported missing in Turkey over the past 10 years have not been accounted for. May I explain to the House that, although every case is individually followed up, it is not always possible to obtain information on the whereabouts of missing persons.
As every consular official in every post in the world will confirm, there are often reports of missing persons who are not missing persons. In many cases where

missing persons turn up somewhere else, to the knowledge of the police or of relatives or friends, that information is not always passed on to the Foreign Office. Sometimes, therefore, our consular officials do not know whether a particular missing person has been located. In other cases, the information is available and is collated by our Department.
A further point raised by my hon. Friend was the suggestion that inadequate precautions have been taken by the Government to protect Britons who travel abroad. Of course, it is not possible to warn our citizens of every danger, especially where that danger cannot be specifically foreseen. Every caution must be taken not to be alarmist.
Where there are identifiable hazards, our consular services take their responsibilities extremely seriously and provide travellers with details of potential hazards and how they can minimise the risks. In the case of Turkey, our consul advises travellers that there is a relatively high risk of robbery there, so that they are aware of it when travelling to that country.
Another suggestion, which I find alarming, was that British nationals of different ethnic backgrounds are not given the same priority. May I make it emphatically clear to the House that it is a policy of the Government that all British citizens are treated with the same priority. If hon. Members have any evidence that that is not the case, I should be grateful if they would provide me with that evidence. I can assure them of an immediate investigation and appropriate action.
Ministers have met the Fernandes family. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary met representatives of the family on 8 and 27 May. She wrote to the family a few weeks ago, on 29 June. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has also met the Fernandes family, as my hon. Friend mentioned. I am prepared to meet representatives of the family, if that would be helpful, but it may be more appropriate for my noble Friend the Under-Secretary to do so.
I reassure the House that the investigation of the circumstances surrounding any missing British citizen abroad is given top priority by the Government. All action that we believe to be effective will be taken and pursued, in this case and in any other case. We would always want to keep those involved in any case advised of developments. All British citizens will be treated with the same degree of priority. I repeat my condolences to the family of Mr. Fernandes and reiterate that the Government will take every step to ensure that justice is done in relation to this terrible tragedy.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o' clock.